Tribunal imposed a mandatory penalty of ₹15,59,363 under Section 114A of the Customs Act for misclassification and duty evasion, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory requirements in cases of deliberate misdeclarations.
CESTAT Kolkata held that owner of the car is liable to pay customs duty on redemption of the confiscated vehicle/ car even if the owner is not the importer of the car. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside an order adding royalty to import valuation, citing jurisdictional issues and lack of finalized assessments. The tribunal emphasizes the need for proper determination of duties under the Customs Act.
Appellant and SKF India are both subsidiaries of AB SKF Sweden. Appellant & SKF India have agreed to pool & combine their respective manpower & other resources for the purpose of achieving maximum synergetic benefits.
CESTAT Chennai held that when the benefit of an exemption Notification is claimed, the claimant has to necessarily fulfil all the conditions prescribed under the said beneficial Notification.
CESTAT Delhi held that communication modules being parts of communication hubs is classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90. Accordingly, differential duty and also interest and imposition of penalty u/s. 114A set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad rules that refund claims must clearly specify the notification and legal provision under which they are sought. Procedural lapses can lead to denial.
CESTAT Hyderabad rules Quick Lime imported by Jindal Stainless correctly classified under CTH 25221000, not 28259090.
CESTAT Chennai ruled that Volvo can import internal combustion engines under DFIA license without restrictions to tractor-related parts.
CESTAT Delhi held that as per section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, being the custodian of imported goods, appellant was burdened with the responsibility of safe custody of the imported goods.
