Reclassification, differential duty, confiscation and penalties quashed where department lacked chemical evidence and improperly reopened past clearan...
CESTAT dismissed all four appeals and upheld imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, finding mens rea on the part of the appellants. The appellate tribunal held that custodial personnel admitted receipt, computerized entry and instructions not to release the seized containers, demonstrating knowledge that seized goods could not be removed without proper officer permission under Section 45(2)(b). The Tribunal further sustained liability under Section 111(j) for rendering imported goods liable to confiscation through connivance in manifest amendment and delivery to a second consignee, permitting re-confiscation for the same policy violation. The role of the appellants was equated to that of the second consignee and the quantum of penalties was held appropriate.
CESTAT dismissed all four appeals and upheld imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, finding mens rea on the part of the appellants. The appellate tribunal held that custodial personnel admitted receipt, computerized entry and instructions not to release the seized containers, demonstrating knowledge that seized goods could not be removed without proper officer permission under Section 45(2)(b). The Tribunal further sustained liability under Section 111(j) for rendering imported goods liable to confiscation through connivance in manifest amendment and delivery to a second consignee, permitting re-confiscation for the same policy violation. The role of the appellants was equated to that of the second consignee and the quantum of penalties was held appropriate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
