The Tribunal held that delayed PIMS registration, when completed before clearance, is a procedural lapse. Confiscation and penalty were set aside as the import was not in substantive violation of policy.
The Tribunal held that failure to return a seized laptop and documents used for defence vitiated the adjudication and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker licence justified since it was involved in filing benami shipping bills in the name of some other IEC holder with intend to export prohibited goods. Accordingly, order upheld and appeal dismissed.
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.
