https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783539 The dominant issue was whether differential customs duty for mis-declared imported goods could be demanded jointly and severally from more than one person. Applying Art. 265 of the Constitution, the Tribunal held that tax can be levied or collected only under clear statutory authority identifying the liable person. Relying on SC principles that a taxing statute must unambiguously specify the subject, person, rate, and measure, it held that while primary liability lies on the importer under s. 28 of the Customs Act, joint/several recovery may be fastened on an authorised agent in limited circumstances under s. 147. The matter was remanded for denovo adjudication on applicability of s. 147; appeal disposed by remand. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Dec 2025 14:27:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783539 The dominant issue was whether differential customs duty for mis-declared imported goods could be demanded jointly and severally from more than one person. Applying Art. 265 of the Constitution, the Tribunal held that tax can be levied or collected only under clear statutory authority identifying the liable person. Relying on SC principles that a taxing statute must unambiguously specify the subject, person, rate, and measure, it held that while primary liability lies on the importer under s. 28 of the Customs Act, joint/several recovery may be fastened on an authorised agent in limited circumstances under s. 147. The matter was remanded for denovo adjudication on applicability of s. 147; appeal disposed by remand. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783539