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...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudicating and appellate orders and held that the imported stainless steel was not liable to confiscation nor to penalty under s.112(a) FA. The Tribunal found the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force on the shipment date (27.01.2017), and therefore the obligation to affix the BIS mark did not attach to goods exported before the Order's commencement; subsequent filing of the bill of entry did not retrospectively impose that requirement. The Revenue's contention of the appellant's alleged prior knowledge was rejected as legally immaterial to liability.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudicating and appellate orders and held that the imported stainless steel was not liable to confiscation nor to penalty under s.112(a) FA. The Tribunal found the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force on the shipment date (27.01.2017), and therefore the obligation to affix the BIS mark did not attach to goods exported before the Order's commencement; subsequent filing of the bill of entry did not retrospectively impose that requirement. The Revenue's contention of the appellant's alleged prior knowledge was rejected as legally immaterial to liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
