https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331095 Export drawback, confiscation and penalty in relation to frozen buffalo meat were examined against allegations that the consignments exceeded APEDA-approved slaughtering capacity and were sourced from non-approved suppliers. The analysis noted that the goods were processed and exported from an APEDA-approved integrated abattoir-cum-meat processing plant, with factory stuffing, customs sealing, valid health certificates and receipt of export proceeds in foreign exchange. As no tangible evidence linked the meat to outside sources, and the objection rested mainly on presumption from the slaughtering limit, the conditions for drawback were not shown to be breached. The basis for treating the goods as prohibited or for recovery and confiscation was therefore not established, and the demand, fine and penalty were not sustainable. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331095 Export drawback, confiscation and penalty in relation to frozen buffalo meat were examined against allegations that the consignments exceeded APEDA-approved slaughtering capacity and were sourced from non-approved suppliers. The analysis noted that the goods were processed and exported from an APEDA-approved integrated abattoir-cum-meat processing plant, with factory stuffing, customs sealing, valid health certificates and receipt of export proceeds in foreign exchange. As no tangible evidence linked the meat to outside sources, and the objection rested mainly on presumption from the slaughtering limit, the conditions for drawback were not shown to be breached. The basis for treating the goods as prohibited or for recovery and confiscation was therefore not established, and the demand, fine and penalty were not sustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331095