Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Penalty on a customs broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for alleged abetment of smuggling was held unsustainable because reliance on the broker's statement and other statements was impermissible without establishing admissibility under Section 138B, and the requested cross-examination was not granted. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no evidence of any intentional act amounting to abetment. Any failure to verify importer antecedents under CBLR, at most, indicated negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling. The appellate authority's reliance on ingredients of Section 112(b) without such allegation in the show cause notice was also impermissible, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Penalty on a customs broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for alleged abetment of smuggling was held unsustainable because reliance on the broker's statement and other statements was impermissible without establishing admissibility under Section 138B, and the requested cross-examination was not granted. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no evidence of any intentional act amounting to abetment. Any failure to verify importer antecedents under CBLR, at most, indicated negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling. The appellate authority's reliance on ingredients of Section 112(b) without such allegation in the show cause notice was also impermissible, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
