CESTAT held that Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations cap penalties at ₹50,000. The Revenue cannot seek a higher penalty or licence revocation beyond what the rules permit.
CESTAT held that dummy export documents prepared for internal charge calculation did not amount to fraud. With no evidence of misuse, penalties on the CFS and its officials were quashed.
The tribunal remanded the case after finding that the customs authorities failed to explain how the enhanced value was arrived at. It held that valuation being the foundation for duty and penalties must be supported by a clear methodology.
CESTAT held that duty drawback must be recovered when genuine sale proceeds of exports are not realised. Mere receipt of unrelated remittances does not satisfy Rule 16A.
The Court refused to entertain a writ against a GST adjudication order, holding that a statutory appeal was available. The ruling reiterates that writ jurisdiction will not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists.
The court upheld customs seizure during domestic transit, holding that prima facie “reason to believe” based on suspicious circumstances is sufficient. Detailed reasons need not be recorded at the seizure stage.
The High Court upheld confiscation and penalties where goods declared as grey fabric were found to be corduroy. The ruling confirms that misdeclaration attracts action under the Customs Act.
The High Court held that Sections 73 and 74 no longer apply from FY 2024–25 and set aside an order passed under Section 73. The order was directed to be treated as a notice under Section 74A.
The tribunal held that since the IEC alert was lifted after the original order, the refund claim required fresh consideration. The matter was remanded to allow document submission and lawful adjudication.
CESTAT held that failure to intimate change of address and return of postal notices showed lack of bona fides. Appeals filed late were rightly rejected as time-barred.
