2026 (2) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1962, along with applicable interest under section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962, while imposing penalty of like amount under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and Rs.32,00,00,000/- under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 even as goods, having been held liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) and 111(q) of Customs Act, 1962, were entailed with fine of Rs. 3,20,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The dispute stems from alleged ineligibility to exemption, available in notification no. 46/2011-Cus dated 1st June 2011 issued in pursuance of the ASEAN India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA) Appellant, for 32 consignments of 'antimony trioxide' imported from Thailand and covered by prescribed certificatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fter its incorporation [Finance Act, 2020 (12 of 2020)] effective from 27th March 2020]. Furthermore, he averred that, with such sweeping empowerment enabling determination by the designated officer against all identical goods emanating from the same supplier, such consequences may also be rescinded by appellate authority on valid ascertainment of determination not being legal and proper. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Tribunal in Marvel Silver & Nilesh Pushparaj Jain v. Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai [2025 (12) TMI 757- CESTAT MUMBAI]. 4. Learned Authorised Representative for respondent submitted that the movement of 'antimony oxide' from Myanmar to Thailand was covered by a form other than Form ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the saddling of consequences is tainted by breach of proper notice prescribed in section 28DA of Customs Act, 1962 even if the report on the single other 'certificate of origin', i.e. certificate of origin no. AI2019-0037008 dated 13th August 2019 corresponding to bill of entry no. 4567038 dated 20th August 2019, was considered as unfavourable. 8. This is particularly so as the movement of 'antimony oxide' from Myanmar was against D Form and in accordance with the bilateral agreement between Thailand and that country. That such transfer did not occur against A Form does not alter the principle of cumulative origin. 9. Nevertheless, we see that, other than the impugned certificate of origin, the imports have been effected against cert....