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 allowed the appeal, holding that the seized foreign currency is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the onus lies upon the Revenue to prove that the currency was not obtained from authorized sources. The Tribunal found no evidence of smuggling, recognized the appellant's legitimate means of income (former academic and subsequent US employment), and concluded that absolute confiscation and penal measures were not warranted. The AIU officer was held to lack jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency matter. Consequently, confiscation and penalty were set aside and the seized currency must be returned absent affirmative proof by the Revenue to the contrary.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the seized foreign currency is not a notified item under Section 123 of the Customs Act and therefore the onus lies upon the Revenue to prove that the currency was not obtained from authorized sources. The Tribunal found no evidence of smuggling, recognized the appellant's legitimate means of income (former academic and subsequent US employment), and concluded that absolute confiscation and penal measures were not warranted. The AIU officer was held to lack jurisdiction to investigate the foreign currency matter. Consequently, confiscation and penalty were set aside and the seized currency must be returned absent affirmative proof by the Revenue to the contrary.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
