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.
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.
