Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
Transaction value under s.15(1) governs unrelated sales; valuation between related parties per Rule 28; consignment note required for unregistered rec...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding confiscation and imposition of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found undisputed mis-declaration of export goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under section 124, and held the Additional Director, DRI, competent to issue the show-cause notice in these proceedings; the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant concerned issuance of notices under section 28 for duty demand and was in any event subsequently reviewed. The appellant's contention of mere ministerial filing of shipping bills was rejected because the bills were benami and filed at the behest of a third party, attracting primary culpability. A separate penalty under CBLR does not preclude imposition under section 114(iii).
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding confiscation and imposition of penalty under section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found undisputed mis-declaration of export goods, rendering them liable to confiscation under section 124, and held the Additional Director, DRI, competent to issue the show-cause notice in these proceedings; the Supreme Court authority relied upon by the appellant concerned issuance of notices under section 28 for duty demand and was in any event subsequently reviewed. The appellant's contention of mere ministerial filing of shipping bills was rejected because the bills were benami and filed at the behest of a third party, attracting primary culpability. A separate penalty under CBLR does not preclude imposition under section 114(iii).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
