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...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10021 to 10040 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order of confiscation and set aside penalties imposed under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge the statutory burden under s.123 to prove the goods were smuggled or of foreign/Nepali origin; no admissible expert opinion or evidentiary material was produced to establish foreign origin, and the appellant's contemporaneous purchase records from local farmers were not refuted by concrete findings. Because the seized peas are not specified under s.123, confiscation could not be sustained on the record, and the consequential penal imposition under s.112 was accordingly annulled.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order of confiscation and set aside penalties imposed under s.112 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge the statutory burden under s.123 to prove the goods were smuggled or of foreign/Nepali origin; no admissible expert opinion or evidentiary material was produced to establish foreign origin, and the appellant's contemporaneous purchase records from local farmers were not refuted by concrete findings. Because the seized peas are not specified under s.123, confiscation could not be sustained on the record, and the consequential penal imposition under s.112 was accordingly annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
