All appeals dismissed; finding of anti-competitive bid-rigging upheld under Sections 3(3)(c), 3(3)(d) read with 3(1); cease-and-desist and total-turno...
Central Government notifies 11.541-hectare Special Economic Zone for semiconductor manufacturing; Approval Committee constituted, ICD status effective...
Government appoints National Customs Targeting Centre-Passenger director as customs officer with powers under PNR Regulations, 2022 and Sections 30A, ...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants' failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record's silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, holding that the appellants did not mis-declare freight in shipping bills and thus are not liable to confiscation or to penalties under ss.114 and 114AA of the CA, 1962. The Tribunal found declarations of average freight permissible under Board Circular No.44/2000 where actual freight was unknown; the appellants' failure to review declared freight after learning actual costs was a lapse, not deliberate mis-declaration aimed at excess drawback. Absent proof of knowingly false declaration or contravention of the published freight schedule, and given the adjudicatory record's silence on mandatory test-check procedures, neither confiscation nor penalties could be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.