Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) set aside for lack of corroborative evidence

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty imposed under Sections 111(b) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal held the Department failed to adduce corroborative evidence establishing foreign origin or illegal importation of the seized dry dates; expert testing lacked probative value and third-party trader opinions based on naked-eye inspection constituted inadmissible hearsay. The record did not disclose any inquiry or material justifying a belief that the consignment contravened the relevant notification, rendering the seizure and consequent punitive measures founded on assumption and presumption. No liability under Section 112(b) was established against the appellant.....