https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450919 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order against the exporter. The tribunal found that customs officials had properly examined goods in containers at the port, and no evidence was presented that goods were substituted after examination. Since the customs officer was discharged from allegations of non-compliance with statutory duties under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods' conformity with declaration at examination time was established. The tribunal held that statements used against the appellant weren't subjected to section 138B rigour, making them inappropriate grounds for connecting the appellant with misdeclaration. Without factual evidence refuting proper declaration at the time of statutory compliance, the exporter's claim succeeded. en-us Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450919 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty order against the exporter. The tribunal found that customs officials had properly examined goods in containers at the port, and no evidence was presented that goods were substituted after examination. Since the customs officer was discharged from allegations of non-compliance with statutory duties under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods' conformity with declaration at examination time was established. The tribunal held that statements used against the appellant weren't subjected to section 138B rigour, making them inappropriate grounds for connecting the appellant with misdeclaration. Without factual evidence refuting proper declaration at the time of statutory compliance, the exporter's claim succeeded. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450919