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.
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.
