The Tribunal declared that once conversion was allowed on appeal for the full period, partial challenges could not survive. The Commissioner’s order granting conversion stood validated.
The Tribunal set aside a ₹50 lakh customs penalty, holding that a co-accused’s statement, without independent corroboration, cannot justify penal action under the Customs Act.
CESTAT held that limitation under Rule 15 starts from communication of re-valuation, making the supplementary drawback claim filed within three months valid.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalties cannot be imposed when there is no evidence that the CHA manager knowingly aided mis-declaration or ineligible drawback claims.
The Tribunal held that seizure based only on presumption and driver statements was invalid. Authorities failed to prove attempted export through non-specified routes.
The issue was whether higher remittances made later could alter the transaction value declared at import. The Tribunal held that customs duty must be determined at the time of import, rendering the differential demand unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that customs authorities cannot deny preferential duty merely because goods are packed in plain bags when a valid Certificate of Origin exists.
The Tribunal ruled that forfeiture of a customs broker’s security deposit could not stand as the show cause notice was not proven to be issued within the mandatory limitation period. Failure to disclose the offence report date vitiated the proceedings.
CESTAT Chennai held that rejection of refund claim, filed in terms of notification no. 102/2007-Customs, merely for the reason that Chartered Account Certificate is not as per prescribed format is not sustainable since format of Chartered Accountant Certificate as per Public Notice No. 39/2011 dated 14.06.2011 is only suggested format and not a mandatory format.
CESTAT Delhi held that since DGFT [Directorate General of Foreign Trade] has issued EODC [Export obligation Discharge Certificate] under EPCG [Export Promotion Capital Goods] hence customs authority cannot initiate proceeding demanding duty/ imposing penalty.
