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...
Penalty under Section 112 could not be sustained because the...
Penalty under Section 112 fails where knowledge, admissible statements, and incriminating evidence are not proved against the Customs Broker's director.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Penalty under Section 112 could not be sustained because the Revenue failed to establish that the Customs Broker's director had knowledge of, or reason to believe in, the alleged undervaluation. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had merely repeated the show cause notice without independent reasoning, and relied on an earlier finding that the appellant was unaware of the contravention and that the incriminating material pointed to others. Statements used against the appellant had not satisfied Section 138B and therefore lacked evidentiary value, while no incriminating documents were recovered from him or the firm to connect him with the violation. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Penalty under Section 112 could not be sustained because the Revenue failed to establish that the Customs Broker's director had knowledge of, or reason to believe in, the alleged undervaluation. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had merely repeated the show cause notice without independent reasoning, and relied on an earlier finding that the appellant was unaware of the contravention and that the incriminating material pointed to others. Statements used against the appellant had not satisfied Section 138B and therefore lacked evidentiary value, while no incriminating documents were recovered from him or the firm to connect him with the violation. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
