Confiscation and duty recovery quashed where licensing records show export obligation discharged; customs lacks jurisdiction absent licence annulment ...
FOB is Incoterm reflecting exporter's transaction value; declared shipping bill value not automatically confiscable under s.113(i), s.125, ss.114(i) a...
The HC, applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon-II, held that DRI officers (including the Additional Director General) are not the proper officers empowered under Section 28(4) to initiate recovery/issue show-cause notices; consequently the impugned recovery proceedings were without jurisdiction. The HC overruled the effect of Mangali Impex as no longer good law, allowed the appellant's challenge, set aside the jurisdictional initiation, and restored the appeal before CESTAT to its original position for adjudication. The appeal is allowed and the contested proceedings are quashed to the extent founded on exercise of Section 28(4) powers by DRI officers.
The HC, applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Canon-II, held that DRI officers (including the Additional Director General) are not the proper officers empowered under Section 28(4) to initiate recovery/issue show-cause notices; consequently the impugned recovery proceedings were without jurisdiction. The HC overruled the effect of Mangali Impex as no longer good law, allowed the appellant's challenge, set aside the jurisdictional initiation, and restored the appeal before CESTAT to its original position for adjudication. The appeal is allowed and the contested proceedings are quashed to the extent founded on exercise of Section 28(4) powers by DRI officers.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
