Actual-User and Non-Transferability: failure to prove compliance sustained demand and confiscation; procedural defect set aside penalty.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Actual-user and non-transferability conditions under Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. required the claimant to prove eligibility; the Tribunal found appellants failed this burden because endorsed licence details were missing, job-workers denied receipt, addresses were false or non-existent, contemporaneous records were absent, and arrangements indicated high-seas sales and third party control, cumulatively supporting diversion of duty free imports rather than bona fide use. The principle that exemption is an exception and claimants must produce the best evidence was applied, sustaining demand, confiscation and penalties, but the penalty proposed under section 112 was set aside for procedural infirmity following the jurisdictional High Court.....