The tribunal held that city seizure of gold without foreign markings or import evidence cannot be treated as smuggling. In the absence of proof of foreign origin, confiscation and penalties were set aside.
The issue was whether customs duty could be demanded from a transferee using DFIA licences allegedly obtained by exporter misrepresentation. The Tribunal held that extended limitation cannot apply where no fraud or suppression is alleged against the importer.
CESTAT Chennai held that penalty under section 114 of the Customs Act not sustained in absence of proof of mens rea since establishing mens-rea is also a prerequisite to attribute attempt. Accordingly, penalty imposed is deleted.
The issue was whether a government-approved valuer could be penalised when Customs did not rely on his valuation. The Tribunal held that penalties are unsustainable without proof of reliance, intent, or collusion.
The Tribunal quashed the duty demand after finding that Customs rejected the declared value without complying with Rule 12. The ruling clarifies that proper reasons, disclosure, and opportunity to rebut are mandatory before enhancing value.
CESTAT held that sending imported goods to a job worker does not violate the non-transfer condition of the Target Plus Scheme. Ownership remaining with the importer was found decisive.
In the absence of any stay or reversal of an earlier binding order, the Tribunal followed settled precedent. Penalties imposed on co-noticees were therefore set aside along with the impugned order.
Tribunal held that amounts deposited during investigation are revenue deposits, not duty, and directed payment of 12% interest as compensation from date of deposit till refund.
CESTAT Chennai held that Zinc EDTA being used as fertilizers are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 3105 and not under Customs Tariff Heading 2922 4990 as held in impugned order. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
CESTAT Kolkata held that knitted readymade garments are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 6102 and, accordingly, the drawback rate would be 10% of FOB value. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant is disposed of.
