https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418217 SEZ exemption for imported jewellery could not be denied on mere allegation of mis-declaration where customs assessments had been completed, SEZ permission covered melting, remaking and re-export, and no cogent evidence showed diversion to the domestic market. Allegations of clandestine removal, confiscation and penalties also failed because the department relied mainly on statements and private records, without cross-examination or independent corroboration, and section 139 of the Customs Act was treated as inapplicable to adjudication. The notices and investigation were further treated as without jurisdiction because they were issued by an officer not shown to be the proper officer for the power exercised. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Feb 2022 07:21:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418217 SEZ exemption for imported jewellery could not be denied on mere allegation of mis-declaration where customs assessments had been completed, SEZ permission covered melting, remaking and re-export, and no cogent evidence showed diversion to the domestic market. Allegations of clandestine removal, confiscation and penalties also failed because the department relied mainly on statements and private records, without cross-examination or independent corroboration, and section 139 of the Customs Act was treated as inapplicable to adjudication. The notices and investigation were further treated as without jurisdiction because they were issued by an officer not shown to be the proper officer for the power exercised. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418217