Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The tribunal held that, on the record, there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the goods imported by the appellant were not impregnating resin and hence outside the scope of DFIA relief. Although customs had earlier cleared the shipments as impregnation resin based on CRCL certification, the investigating agency did not obtain expert analysis from CLRI or CRCL of samples during the probe. In the absence of expert testing and other probative material, the show-cause notice and the demand of duty denying DFIA benefits, together with imposed penalties, could not be sustained and were quashed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The tribunal held that, on the record, there is no sufficient evidence to establish that the goods imported by the appellant were not impregnating resin and hence outside the scope of DFIA relief. Although customs had earlier cleared the shipments as impregnation resin based on CRCL certification, the investigating agency did not obtain expert analysis from CLRI or CRCL of samples during the probe. In the absence of expert testing and other probative material, the show-cause notice and the demand of duty denying DFIA benefits, together with imposed penalties, could not be sustained and were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
