2026-VIL-1426-CESTAT-CHD-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1426-CESTAT-CHD-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Misdeclaration of country of origin – Evidentiary value of unauthenticated overseas customs documents – Appellants imported dry dates declared as originating from Saudi Arabia; Department obtained Transshipment Bill of Entry documents from Federal Customs Authority, UAE showing goods originated from Pakistan and were transshipped through Dubai; Department relied on unauthenticated photocopies of documents alleged to be obtained from overseas customs authority to establish misdeclaration – Whether unauthenticated documents obtained from overseas customs authority without proper authentication and without supply of copies to appellants can be relied upon as conclusive evidence to establish country of origin – HELD – Whether unauthenticated overseas customs documents or COIN reports can be used as reliable evidence depends entirely on strength of facts and how well they are corroborated – Raw, unverified intelligence or unauthenticated photocopies are not sufficient to reject declared transaction or establish allegation; such reports treated merely as starting point for investigation, not final proof of violation – When foreign authorities provide specific, verified investigative report backed by strong independent facts and completely corroborated, evidence becomes reliable and admissible – In present case, documents are not authenticated; documents do not bear stamps and seals of overseas customs authority; manner of obtaining and procuring documents not explained satisfactorily; copy of forwarding letter by which officer posted abroad claimed to have sent report was not provided to appellants – Documents being merely printouts from website which are not stamped or signed cannot be treated as conclusive evidence – Unauthenticated photocopies forwarded by officer posted in Dubai cannot be treated as gospel truth to establish allegation against appellants – Allegation of misdeclaration of country of origin not established by credible authentic evidence - Customs – Country of Origin of imported goods – Verification of country of origin certificate – Whether country of origin can be determined without conducting formal verification with certificate issuing authority as per Rule 6 of Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 – HELD – In absence of verification from country of declared origin, allegation of misdeclaration of country of origin does not survive – Where country of origin and country of re-export are different, phytosanitary certificate for re-export along with attested copy of phytosanitary certificate from country of origin is mandatory – Custom authorities cannot challenge or reject country of origin certificate issued by government authorities of other country without conducting verification from certificate issuing authority – Authenticity of certificate must be enquired from issuing country; certificate cannot be discarded without checking authenticity – When certificate of origin, phytosanitary certificate and markings on bags all show same country of origin and no enquiry was conducted from exporting country to prove certificate false, mere suspicion is not enough to discard documents – Conclusion on country of origin cannot be arrived at without causing authentic enquiry on authenticity of certificate issued by country authorities – In present case, genuineness of certificate not enquired from issuing country; allegation that country of origin is Pakistan not established conclusively - Customs – Confiscation – Goods imported and already cleared for home consumption – Whether goods already cleared for home consumption and seized cease to be imported goods and can be confiscated – HELD – Goods once imported and cleared for home consumption cease to be imported goods as per Section 2(f) of Customs Act, 1962 – It is not open for revenue to propose confiscation of goods which have been imported and cleared by authorities for home consumption after due examination and after satisfying themselves as to whether conditions required for clearance are met – Clearing of goods by customs officers including by SIIB after due examination creates presumption of proper clearance; confiscation cannot be based on allegations which were not conclusively established through authentic evidence – However, goods which were seized and not cleared by appellants for violation of Phytosanitary certificate requirements can be confiscated as such goods are still imported goods and were not cleared for home consumption – Confiscation of goods already cleared for home consumption is not sustainable and is set aside - Customs – Confiscation – Violation of Phytosanitary certificate requirements –Whether goods can be confiscated and redemption fine imposed for violation of phytosanitary requirements when goods were not cleared by customs – HELD – Goods imported in violation of mandatory phytosanitary certificate requirements are prohibited goods under Section 2(33) of Customs Act and are liable to be confiscated under Section 111 – Where goods were seized and not cleared by appellants and phytosanitary certificates were not produced, goods cannot be released and are liable to be confiscated – However, when confiscation is proposed, redemption fine imposed under Section 125 should be reasonable and should take into consideration facts of case, profit margin and detention and demurrage charges that may have to be borne by appellants – In present case, goods seized for violation of phytosanitary requirements are liable to be confiscated; however, appellants given option to redeem goods on payment of reasonable redemption fine subject to submission of necessary phytosanitary certificate - Customs – Penalty – Imposition of penalty not proposed in show cause notice - Whether penalty can be imposed when same was not proposed in show cause notice – HELD – Penalty under Section 112 can be imposed only when proposed in show cause notice; imposition of penalty beyond purview of show cause notice is not permissible and is contrary to principles of natural justice – Adjudicating authority must confine itself to issues and grounds raised in show cause notice; expanding scope of demand or penalty beyond show cause notice denies assessee opportunity to respond to fresh allegations – In present case, penalty under Section 112 was not proposed in show cause notices but was imposed by adjudicating authority which is beyond permissible scope; imposition of penalty not proposed in SCN is set aside.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?