Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
The HC affirmed that the levy of penalty under s.114, Customs Act, 1962 was properly sustained by the adjudicating authority and CESTAT. Although the criminal acquittal of the appellants relied on the same evidence, the adjudicative bodies permissibly applied the civil preponderance of probabilities and found appellants abetted the manufacture and export of narcotic drugs by executing deliveries at the instructions of the principal instigator and accompanying co-noticees. The CESTAT did not exceed its jurisdiction in declining to treat the criminal judgment as determinative of the quasi-judicial proceedings. Both contested questions were answered for the Revenue and the departmental appeal was dismissed.
The HC affirmed that the levy of penalty under s.114, Customs Act, 1962 was properly sustained by the adjudicating authority and CESTAT. Although the criminal acquittal of the appellants relied on the same evidence, the adjudicative bodies permissibly applied the civil preponderance of probabilities and found appellants abetted the manufacture and export of narcotic drugs by executing deliveries at the instructions of the principal instigator and accompanying co-noticees. The CESTAT did not exceed its jurisdiction in declining to treat the criminal judgment as determinative of the quasi-judicial proceedings. Both contested questions were answered for the Revenue and the departmental appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
