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.
The Tribunal held that a penalty under the Customs Act cannot be sustained when it is based on assumptions, unsupported statements, and denial of cross-examination.
The CESTAT held that penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA cannot be imposed without establishing the appellant’s knowledge of mis-declaration. The appeal succeeded, and fines were set aside.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that imported tugboats are not machinery, equipment or tools. It is specifically covered under Chapter Heading 8904 and hence benefit of notification no. 72/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 not admissible.
CESTAT ruled that statements and WhatsApp messages cannot be treated as evidence for imposing penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 without following procedural safeguards, including examination in chief and cross-examination.
The Tribunal held that the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 was not in force at the time of shipment in January 2017. The import was cleared as BIS marking was not required, setting aside previous confiscation orders.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that there is no circular trading of cut and polished diamonds and gold jewellery exported. Further, also held that revenue has failed to prove misdeclaration. Accordingly, appeals of revenue dismissed.
CESTAT Ahmedabad remanded a case to reconsider exemption on imported bioequivalence drugs for clinical trials after finding factual errors regarding Form 44 filing.
CESTAT quashes penalty on stainless steel import, ruling that BIS certification wasn’t mandatory as the Bill of Lading date preceded the Quality Control Order’s effective date.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that entry inward at respective port shall determine rate of duty applicable. Accordingly, enhanced duty rate of 7.5% applicable in the present case. Thus, appeal of assessee dismissed.
