https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116108 Territorial jurisdiction in a customs import dispute lies with the customs authorities at the place where the goods are imported, so Chennai customs could investigate and adjudicate where the car landed at Chennai port. A delayed, unsupported retraction of an initial disowning statement did not establish that the appellant was the actual importer or a bona fide claimant under Public Notice No. 3/97-02, particularly where surrounding circumstances did not corroborate the claim. The penalty was considered excessive on the record and was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 25,000, while confiscation and redemption fine were sustained. en-us Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:06:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116108 Territorial jurisdiction in a customs import dispute lies with the customs authorities at the place where the goods are imported, so Chennai customs could investigate and adjudicate where the car landed at Chennai port. A delayed, unsupported retraction of an initial disowning statement did not establish that the appellant was the actual importer or a bona fide claimant under Public Notice No. 3/97-02, particularly where surrounding circumstances did not corroborate the claim. The penalty was considered excessive on the record and was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 25,000, while confiscation and redemption fine were sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116108