CESTAT Bangalore sets aside differential duty in Hazel Mercantile Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs case, emphasizing no demand on undervaluation due to higher discount on import.
CESTAT Bangalore nullifies Rs. 1,00,000 penalty on B.K. Manjunath under Customs Act Section 114(1) due to lack of evidence in illegal export allegation.
CESTAT Bangalore clarifies that the ‘Let Export Order’ date is crucial for determining the customs duty rate on exports, impacting refund claims.
CESTAT Bangalore rules in favor of Minebea Intec, waiving customs penalty post voluntary duty payment before SCN issuance. Detailed insights here.
CESTAT Bangalore rules against UDL Logistics for not verifying exporter’s rep, imposing penalty. Full analysis of the case provided.
CESTAT Bangalore rules that Huy Glass made of 100% glass fibres is correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8421 as air purifiers, not textiles.
CESTAT Bangalore rules on Bra Cups classification: Customs duty to be charged on the value of a pair. Detailed analysis of Lovable Lingerie Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs.
The tribunal concluded that the Commissioner failed to present additional evidence beyond co-accused statements, mirroring the trial court’s findings. Emphasizing the principle of double jeopardy, the tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, granting victory to Abdul Razak.
Explore the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Rajhans Enterprises: CESTAT’s decision on reassessment for refund of excess customs duty and the legal implications.
Explore the CESTAT Bangalore case of J K Tyre vs Commissioner regarding the validity of excise duty refund appropriation. Detailed analysis of the order and its implications.
