Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and discharged the importer-appellant and the individual accused of liability. The Tribunal held Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof on the preponderance of probabilities: electronic documents were inadmissible, the contested valuation methodology lacked legal foundation, and the Country of Origin (COO) certificates were not successfully impugned or shown to relate to different shipments. Revenue also did not pursue corroborative investigation with foreign authorities regarding alleged fake COO certificates. Consequently, findings of anti-dumping evasion and attendant penalties could not be sustained, confiscation was inapplicable, and penalty imposition was overturned.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.