Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
Recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act were held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand higher than the amount proposed in the initiating notice, because the notice defines the scope of jurisdiction and cannot be expanded without amendment. The Tribunal also treated a unilateral demand letter as no valid show cause notice, since Section 28 requires a notice calling upon the noticee to answer the proposed demand before any recovery is fastened. In addition, adjudication after nearly twenty-three years was held to cause fatal prejudice and offend the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, so the impugned order was set aside.
Recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act were held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand higher than the amount proposed in the initiating notice, because the notice defines the scope of jurisdiction and cannot be expanded without amendment. The Tribunal also treated a unilateral demand letter as no valid show cause notice, since Section 28 requires a notice calling upon the noticee to answer the proposed demand before any recovery is fastened. In addition, adjudication after nearly twenty-three years was held to cause fatal prejudice and offend the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, so the impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
