https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765039 CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal in a bike smuggling case. The tribunal held that Hyderabad Customs had jurisdiction since the bike was registered with RTA Hyderabad, despite allegations of smuggling through Kolkata port. The fake Bill of Entry from Kolkata negated any jurisdiction there. The tribunal found that confiscation under Section 111(d), (i), and (j) of Customs Act could not be sustained as the bike was not prohibited goods, not concealed, and not removed from customs area without permission. Consequently, penalty under Section 112(b) was also set aside. The impugned order was overturned and appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:44:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765039 CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal in a bike smuggling case. The tribunal held that Hyderabad Customs had jurisdiction since the bike was registered with RTA Hyderabad, despite allegations of smuggling through Kolkata port. The fake Bill of Entry from Kolkata negated any jurisdiction there. The tribunal found that confiscation under Section 111(d), (i), and (j) of Customs Act could not be sustained as the bike was not prohibited goods, not concealed, and not removed from customs area without permission. Consequently, penalty under Section 112(b) was also set aside. The impugned order was overturned and appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765039