Proceeds of crime and property equivalent in value: failure to explain lawful source sustains attachment; lack of required notice can vitiate confirma...
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen or demand duty on alleged wrongful availment of MEIS benefits while the DGFT scrips remained valid and subsisting. The Court held that such incentives arise under the foreign trade policy and must be dealt with by the licensing authority; Section 28 and Section 28AAA of the Customs Act were wrongly invoked because the case did not involve imported goods or any short levy, short payment, non-levy, or non-payment of duty. A penalty under Section 114AA against the customs broker also failed because a mere misdescription in classification, without wilful intent, does not establish mens rea. The Tribunal's order and the penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
