https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774426 In DTA clearance of worn clothing from an SEZ, the Tribunal treated the SEZ unit as the importer because it had imported and retained custody of the goods until clearance, so differential customs duty, confiscation and related liability remained fastened to it. It also held that the garments did not satisfy the prescribed mutilation standard under Circular No. 36/2000-Customs, as the cuts were near the seams and did not amount to complete mutilation into totally unserviceable rags. On that basis, the customs demand, confiscation and penalties on the SEZ unit and its authorised signatory were sustained. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774426 In DTA clearance of worn clothing from an SEZ, the Tribunal treated the SEZ unit as the importer because it had imported and retained custody of the goods until clearance, so differential customs duty, confiscation and related liability remained fastened to it. It also held that the garments did not satisfy the prescribed mutilation standard under Circular No. 36/2000-Customs, as the cuts were near the seams and did not amount to complete mutilation into totally unserviceable rags. On that basis, the customs demand, confiscation and penalties on the SEZ unit and its authorised signatory were sustained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774426