Explore the Ajay Traders vs. C.C.-Mundra case: CESTAT Ahmedabad rejects customs’ reliance on Zuaba portal data, deeming it unauthenticated. Details of the order and key legal arguments.
Explore the CESTAT Chennai order in TCP Limited vs Commissioner of Customs regarding the concessional rate of duty on imported coal. Detailed analysis and implications.
Explore the implications of the National Company Law Tribunal’s resolution plan approval on the CESTAT Bangalore’s jurisdiction in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs.
CESTAT Kolkata held that confiscation of boondi silver and silver jewellary alleging it to be smuggled goods without any evidence to allege that these are third country origin is unsustainable in law.
CESTAT Mumbai held that imposition of penalty for failure in not being proactive for fulfilling of regulation 10(a) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 [CBLR,2018] alone, is appropriate and justifiable.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-determination of value resorting to valuation under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules justified on failure to advance any documents/ invoice to substantiate the value of goods.
CESTAT Delhi upheld revocation of Customs Broker license on failure to make appropriate enquiries of their client and for facilitating fraudulent highly under-valued exports.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that steel balls are classifiable under the Chapter Heading 8482 9900 and not under Chapter Heading 8714 as contended by revenue. Accordingly, duty demand set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that forfeiture of security deposit justified as Customs Broker failed to act in a proactive manner in fulfilling their obligation as Customs Broker, particularly when the import documents were obtained from the importers through an intermediary.
CESTAT Mumbai held that revocation of Customs Broker license unjustified as punishment suffered by being out of Customs broker business for about two years is enough to mitigate case of violations or contraventions of CBLR, 2018.
