Imported seaweed extract provisionally released on bond only; declaratory rejection set aside; appellate decision due within section 128-A(4-A) three ...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9421 to 9440 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
