Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
Transaction value under s.15(1) governs unrelated sales; valuation between related parties per Rule 28; consignment note required for unregistered rec...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation and penalty. The tribunal held that Customs officers failed to form an independent reasonable belief of smuggling under s.110(1) CA 1962, having merely adopted CISF's initial detention; thus the seizure was arbitrary. The appellant subsequently produced verifiable documents proving domestic procurement and conversion of old jewellery into seven gold bars and silver, discharging the evidential burden under s.123 CA 1962. No cogent material established foreign origin or illicit importation of the bars; foreign markings alone were insufficient. Consequently the order of absolute confiscation under ss.112(a) and 112(b) and the attendant penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation and penalty. The tribunal held that Customs officers failed to form an independent reasonable belief of smuggling under s.110(1) CA 1962, having merely adopted CISF's initial detention; thus the seizure was arbitrary. The appellant subsequently produced verifiable documents proving domestic procurement and conversion of old jewellery into seven gold bars and silver, discharging the evidential burden under s.123 CA 1962. No cogent material established foreign origin or illicit importation of the bars; foreign markings alone were insufficient. Consequently the order of absolute confiscation under ss.112(a) and 112(b) and the attendant penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
