CESTAT Delhi held that customs authorities cannot question the discharge certificate issued by DGFT in respect of the export obligation in respect of EPCG License. Accordingly, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty set aside.
Finding that the broker had collected Aadhaar, PAN, GST, bank and IT documents, Tribunal ruled that no penalty under Sections 114 & 114AA could be sustained.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of Customs Broker License by Customs authorities not sustainable since there is no violation of Regulation 10(b), 10(d) and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 as alleged in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
CESTAT Delhi held that Adjudicating Authority is bound by the findings in remand proceedings, it is not open for him to revisit the issue. Thus, Adjudicating Authority failed to appreciate the limited scope of its jurisdiction in terms of the remand order and thereby fell in error in reconsidering all the issues on merits.
CESTAT Mumbai held that re-classification of goods and demand of differential duty based on re-testing report without providing the said re-test report to the importer/ assessee is not tenable in law. Accordingly, demand u/s. 28 doesn’t stand the scrutiny of law.
CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that a company can transfer and utilize CENVAT credit between its Central Excise and service tax accounts, citing judicial precedent from the Gujarat High Court.
The Principal Commissioner was not justified in ignoring the certificate of origin issued by the competent authority in UAE. In the absence of a finding by the competent authority that this is a fake certificate, this certificate would conclusively prove that the imported goods originated from UAE.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license upheld since Customs House Agent [CHA] violated regulation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 as failed to verify importer’s credentials.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Quicklime is rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 2522 1000 since the purity of Calcium Oxide is less than 98%. Accordingly, order classifying under 2825 9090 set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that ‘Gun Shape Metal Cigarette Lighters’ are not liable for confiscation u/s. 111(d)/ 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 since ‘cigarette lighters’ of gun shape remain as lighters by its functioning and not as replica of arms as defined u/s. 69A of the Weapons Act, 1990.
