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 imported gold pendants are classifiable under CTH 7113 1910, as declared by the appellant, and not under CTH 7108 1300 as held by the lower authorities. Relying on HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that DGFT Notifications dated 24.08.2019 and 18.12.2019, and subsequent Notification No. 22/2021 expanding the restriction, could not be applied retrospectively, as the goods were freely importable on the date of import. The pendants, being wearable jewellery of 99.99% purity, were not prohibited goods. Consequently, the demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable and the Commissioner's order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
CESTAT held that the imported gold pendants are classifiable under CTH 7113 1910, as declared by the appellant, and not under CTH 7108 1300 as held by the lower authorities. Relying on HC precedent, the Tribunal ruled that DGFT Notifications dated 24.08.2019 and 18.12.2019, and subsequent Notification No. 22/2021 expanding the restriction, could not be applied retrospectively, as the goods were freely importable on the date of import. The pendants, being wearable jewellery of 99.99% purity, were not prohibited goods. Consequently, the demand, confiscation and penalties were held unsustainable and the Commissioner's order was set aside, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
