https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444101 The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal in a customs case involving foreign currency seizure. The court upheld CESTAT's finding that the respondent was not the beneficial owner of seized currency during business travel undertaken as Managing Director. While the Appellate Authority had invoked beneficial owner principles under Section 2(3A) of Customs Act and penalized the respondent under Section 114(i), CESTAT correctly determined the currency was for business purposes managed by another entity, not personal use. The HC ruled that re-appreciating evidence was impermissible as appeals are restricted to questions of law, affirming the respondent was not liable for penalties regarding the seized foreign currency. en-us Thu, 05 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444101 The Delhi HC dismissed an appeal in a customs case involving foreign currency seizure. The court upheld CESTAT's finding that the respondent was not the beneficial owner of seized currency during business travel undertaken as Managing Director. While the Appellate Authority had invoked beneficial owner principles under Section 2(3A) of Customs Act and penalized the respondent under Section 114(i), CESTAT correctly determined the currency was for business purposes managed by another entity, not personal use. The HC ruled that re-appreciating evidence was impermissible as appeals are restricted to questions of law, affirming the respondent was not liable for penalties regarding the seized foreign currency. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 05 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444101