Prohibited importation of cosmetics without prior regulatory registration attracts seizure and confiscation; warehousing or re export claims do not cu...
Provisional release on security permitted where cash deposit plus bond secures differential duty; classification and treaty benefits referred for deci...
Customs Valuation Rule Sequence must be followed; single-comparator re-determination and penalties set aside without comparability or proof of mis-dec...
Separately Identifiable Services: transportation found to be the essential character, so Cargo Handling classification and extended limitation rejecte...
The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was "subject to" a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner's "if and only if" reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an import licence condition stating that import of gold dore bars was "subject to" a 2012 customs notification barred availment of a separate 2008 exemption notification. The tribunal held that the licence did not expressly prohibit other applicable exemptions; therefore, if an exemption notification fully exempted duty, the importer could lawfully claim it notwithstanding the licence reference to the 2012 notification, and the Commissioner's "if and only if" reading was unsustainable. It further held that customs could not question the validity of a DGFT-issued licence unless it was cancelled by DGFT, and hence duty demand under s.28(1), penalty under s.112(a)(ii), and redemption fine could not survive; the order was set aside and appeal allowed - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
