CESTAT Allahabad set aside a penalty imposed on a customs officer, holding that statements recorded under duress and without corroboration cannot be relied upon for conviction.
Tribunal ruled that advertisement, promotional, and management service payments made by an importer are not a condition of sale and cannot be added to customs valuation under Rule 10(1)(e).
FOB value was the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value could not be modified by any stranger to the contract by virtue of the principle of “privity of contract”.
Proforma invoices could not replace commercial invoices prepared after negotiation and accepted by customs. Statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon since the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed and the alleged proforma invoices were not duly proved or corroborated with evidence.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that there is no circular trading of cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery exported. Further, also held that revenue has failed to prove misdeclaration. Accordingly, appeals of revenue dismissed.
CESTAT Mumbai held that MIMO-based Wi-Fi extenders qualify for exemption under customs notification, clarifying that exclusion applies only to products combining MIMO and LTE technologies.
CESTAT ruled that undervaluation suspicion in one Bill cannot justify rejecting values in other consignments. It upheld revaluation for one import but annulled demands, confiscation, and penalties for 44 past Bills.
Equipment imported for mall amusement facilities was confirmed as valid under tariff heading 9506, allowing preferential duty, as customs misapplied classification rules and relied on non-statutory documents.
CESTAT Chennai held that a notice under Section 28(6) of the Customs Act is mandatory before confirming short payment of duty or penalty, setting aside the order against L&T.
CESTAT Chandigarh ruled that Punjab Cricket Association was not liable for service tax on a tournament subsidy received from Procam International. The Tribunal held the payment related to sponsorship services, where tax liability rests with the recipient. The service tax demand was set aside.
