Back
NELSON SAILO, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Commissioner, Customs (Preventive) – Appellant
Versus
Eanam Ahmed Laskar S/o Abdul Hannan Laskar (L) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.
1. Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Customs Reference has been registered on filing of an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), NER, Shillong, impugning the Order dated 06.07.2022, passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zone, Kolkata, in Custom Appeal No. 75949/2021.
3. By order dated 19.03.2024, this Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, had formulated the following substantial questions of law:-
ii. Notwithstanding that in view of the fact that Betel/Areca Nut is not a notified item under the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, the Department had duly discharged it’s burden to prove that the seized goods have been smuggled into the Country by the respondent.
iii. Whether the learned CESTAT erred in law by accepting the GST documents submitted by the appellant in sup
The burden of proof for non-notified goods under the Customs Act lies with the Customs Department to establish smuggling, which must be supported by cogent evidence.
Section 123 of Act, 1962 provides that where any goods included under Sub-section 2 of Section 123 are seized on basis of reasonable belief that same are smuggled goods, then burden of proving that t....
The court emphasized that interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice should be rare and not in a routine manner, and the availability of alternative remedy should be considered before....
The court validated the customs authority's seizure of goods based on reasonable suspicion, upholding the impossibility of judicial review on the sufficiency of the officer's reasons.
Wilful suppression and misstatement in job work exports using wrong scheme code justifies extended limitation under Section 28(4) and substantial pre-deposit; prior rulings inapplicable if facts diff....
The burden of proof in customs seizures lies with the appellant, who must demonstrate improper valuation or legality of confiscation; failure to substantiate claims results in dismissal of appeal.
Tribunal's order perverse for ignoring deliberate wrong export scheme code to evade scrutiny, suppression, and notification violations; failed to distinguish inadvertent error from wilful act; origin....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
