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...
CESTAT held that the customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
CESTAT held that the customs broker (Appellant-CHA) could not be penalized under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged abetment of illegal import of green and white peas. The Appellant-CHA had duly filed the Bill of Entry with all requisite documents, which were examined and accepted by Customs, and out-of-charge was granted. The subsequent interception of vehicles by SSB and detection of discrepancies during transit could not be attributed to the CHA, whose role is limited to filing documents and facilitating clearance under CBLR, 2018. No evidence of connivance or knowledge of concealment by the CHA was found. CESTAT set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
