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.
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.
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 Delhi held that interest u/s. 75A is payable at the rate specified in section 27A of the Customs Act from date after expiry of the period of one month of ‘let export order’ to date of payment of drawback. Accordingly, appeal allowed to that extent.
Assessee submitted that these invoices were genuine, shared with Exclusive Motors, and disclosed to investigators. They argued that Bentley had no role in the customs declarations filed in India and could not be blamed for the importer’s omissions.
CESTAT Delhi held that duty to be levied on CIF value and cost of freight for transport via air to be restricted to 20% of Free on Board [FOB] value of the goods. Hence, demand of differential duty sustained.
CESTAT Delhi dismisses an appeal in a gold smuggling case involving passenger baggage, stating it lacks jurisdiction under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
CESTAT Delhi held that order revoking Customs Broker License set aside on account of breach of time limit contemplated under regulation 17 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2018. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
