CESTAT held that restricted goods fall within the scope of prohibition when import conditions are not met. While confiscation was sustained, the penalty was reduced as no malafide intent was found.
CESTAT held that goods cannot be confiscated without concrete evidence of illegal import. Local market opinion alone was found insufficient to establish smuggling of non-notified goods.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs cannot re-assess import value solely on NIDB data. Transaction value must first be rejected on cogent evidence before any enhancement.
CESTAT Kolkata held that once proceedings are initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, separate penalty proceedings under the Customs Act are not permissible without independent evidence of offence.
CESTAT held that once goods are confiscated and redeemed, they cannot be confiscated again. The ruling nullified confiscation and penalties imposed on a subsequent purchaser.
The Tribunal held that commission-based support services provided to foreign entities qualified as export of services, making service tax demands unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that enhancement of import value without properly rejecting transaction value and following sequential valuation methods is legally unsustainable.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the device i.e. Face Recognition System is clearly Automatic Data Processing machinery falling under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 8471 only and not under CTH 8543. Accordingly, appeals are allowed.
CESTAT held that a Customs Broker cannot be penalised merely because the exporter mis-declared goods or value. Liability under CBLR requires independent proof of broker’s breach of obligations.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained when it is based on assumptions, unsupported statements, and denial of cross-examination.
