CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as transferee of validly issued Gold Replenishment Licences, was not liable to customs duty or confiscation merely because the original licences may have been procured through fraud by others. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Tribunal held that where the licensing authority has actually issued licences and they are not forged, exemption cannot be denied to either the original holder or bona fide purchaser during the licence validity. The Tribunal further held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as evidence since the mandatory procedure under section 138B, including examination and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as transferee of validly issued Gold Replenishment Licences, was not liable to customs duty or confiscation merely because the original licences may have been procured through fraud by others. Relying on its earlier precedent, the Tribunal held that where the licensing authority has actually issued licences and they are not forged, exemption cannot be denied to either the original holder or bona fide purchaser during the licence validity. The Tribunal further held that statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were inadmissible as evidence since the mandatory procedure under section 138B, including examination and opportunity for cross-examination, was not followed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.