Imported women's knitted scarves and shawls classification dispute: Textile Committee report upheld; confiscation maintained, but redemption fine and ...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order denying exemption under AIFTA and imposing redemption fine under s.125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It held that the adjudicating authority, in de novo proceedings, exceeded its jurisdiction by fastening redemption fine when the original proceedings had not ordered redemption on payment of fine, reiterating that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position for exercising appellate rights. The Tribunal found no allegation or finding that the goods did not originate in Thailand, nor any challenge to the authenticity or validity of the certificates of origin, rendering denial of exemption and consequent recovery under s.28 unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
