CESTAT Mumbai overturns order revoking Sarajdeep Logistics’ customs broker license, citing insufficient evidence and reliance on inadmissible statements.
CESTAT Delhi held that regulation 10(n) doesn’t mandate Customs Broker to verify correctness of certificate or registration issued by other concerned government officer. Thus, revocation of customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit are set aside.
CESTAT Chennai held that ‘Receiver’ being part of the phone is classifiable under CTH 8517. Thus, classification sought to be made by the Revenue under CTH 8518 lacks merit and hence, order is set aside.
CESTAT Kolkata sets aside customs duty order as authorities failed to provide test reports. Case remanded for fresh adjudication following natural justice principles.
CESTAT Chennai held that Epoxidised Soya Bean Oil is classifiable under tariff heading 1518 0039 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. Accordingly, duty demand of normal period with appropriate interest confirmed.
CESTAT Delhi held that responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Thus, customs broker cannot be held responsible if client moves to new premises and doesn’t inform authorities.
CESTAT Delhi held that FOB value is the transaction value and customs officer has no right to interfere/ modify the FOB value of the goods. Thus, appeal of exporter’s allowed and order set aside.
CESTAT Delhi held that Amendment Notification no. 36/2021-Customs dated 19.07.2021 cannot be said to be retrospective in nature. Accordingly, orders are liable to be set aside and all the appeals are allowed.
CESTAT Mumbai overturns refund rejection for Syntel Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., allowing SEZ input credit for Business Support Services under SEZ Rules.
CESTAT Allahabad remands appeal in Krishna Road Carrier case, ruling that pre-deposit via DRC-03 before 28.10.22 is valid under new CBIC clarifications.
