https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372428 Subsequent proceedings under the CHA Licensing Regulations could not be sustained on the same transaction after an earlier Customs Act penalty had already been set aside for lack of a specific proved contravention. The later notice and order were based on the very same facts as the first round, and the regulatory action relied on no material independent of those facts. The court therefore held that the two proceedings were not truly distinct, quashed the impugned order, forfeiture and show-cause notice, and allowed the appeal. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2019 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372428 Subsequent proceedings under the CHA Licensing Regulations could not be sustained on the same transaction after an earlier Customs Act penalty had already been set aside for lack of a specific proved contravention. The later notice and order were based on the very same facts as the first round, and the regulatory action relied on no material independent of those facts. The court therefore held that the two proceedings were not truly distinct, quashed the impugned order, forfeiture and show-cause notice, and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372428