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...
CESTAT held that the Appellant was liable to pay customs duty with interest on 230.77 MT of imported crude palm oil and on the balance found short, as the statutory condition for exemption notification was not fulfilled because the goods were not proved to have been used in manufacture of specified final products. The Tribunal found absence of evidence for clandestine removal and insufficient proof of an accounting error; loss by fire did not negate liability for duty and interest. However, penalties under ss.114A, 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act were set aside for lack of evidence of collusion, misdeclaration or other culpable contravention. Appeal partly allowed.
CESTAT held that the Appellant was liable to pay customs duty with interest on 230.77 MT of imported crude palm oil and on the balance found short, as the statutory condition for exemption notification was not fulfilled because the goods were not proved to have been used in manufacture of specified final products. The Tribunal found absence of evidence for clandestine removal and insufficient proof of an accounting error; loss by fire did not negate liability for duty and interest. However, penalties under ss.114A, 114AA and 117 of the Customs Act were set aside for lack of evidence of collusion, misdeclaration or other culpable contravention. Appeal partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
