Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Confiscation and penalty quashed for lack of evidence and procedural lapses under Customs Act Section 138B

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The CESTAT set aside the order enhancing the transaction value of imported goods and imposing confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, finding that the Revenue failed to provide contemporaneous evidence to reject the declared transaction value. The Tribunal held that reliance on prior imports' higher valuation to reject current declared values was unfounded and contrary to established customs jurisprudence. Additionally, the adjudicating authority's failure to adhere to Section 138B of the Customs Act, including denial of cross-examination, rendered the statements inadmissible. Following binding precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of procedural compliance under Section 138B and rejected the impugned order as legally unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant were quashed.....