https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450092 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed appeals by customs authorities against officials accused of accepting illicit gratification for clearing restricted goods. The tribunal found insufficient evidence linking specific officials to alleged payments, noting depositions contained only general allegations without naming respondent officials. The court held that liability for confiscation arose from the nature of imported goods (mixed hydrocarbon oil being high speed diesel) at declaration stage, not from any official misconduct. The adjudicating authority properly disposed of double jeopardy pleas without legal deficiency warranting remand proceedings under section 129A of Customs Act, 1962. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450092 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed appeals by customs authorities against officials accused of accepting illicit gratification for clearing restricted goods. The tribunal found insufficient evidence linking specific officials to alleged payments, noting depositions contained only general allegations without naming respondent officials. The court held that liability for confiscation arose from the nature of imported goods (mixed hydrocarbon oil being high speed diesel) at declaration stage, not from any official misconduct. The adjudicating authority properly disposed of double jeopardy pleas without legal deficiency warranting remand proceedings under section 129A of Customs Act, 1962. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450092