#Customs Act 1962

CESTAT Kolkata held that imposing penalties under Sections 114(i) and 114AA requires proof of the exporter's knowledge or active abetment; mere negligence or irresponsible conduct in verifying shipping bills is insufficient. The ruling shields exporters from penal liability absent mens rea, clarifying that procedural lapses do not equate to complicity in smuggling.

The tribunal ruled that customs duty can only be recovered from the actual importer of goods, not from directors of companies that sold title documents on the high seas. This bars revenue from issuing joint several demands against high sea sellers' directors, protecting corporate officers from liability for obligations that legally belong solely to the importer.

CESTAT Kolkata set aside confiscation of unmarked gold seized from a domestic passenger, ruling revenue must first prove foreign origin before Section 123's reverse burden applies. The tribunal held that possession of unmarked gold on a domestic flight alone cannot trigger the smuggling presumption without foundational evidence of foreign source.

CESTAT Kolkata set aside the gold confiscation, ruling that concealment and missing documents alone do not prove smuggling without foreign origin proof. This clarifies the customs burden under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act 1962, impacting traders.

CESTAT held that adjusting a SAD refund against a sub-judice duty drawback demand is impermissible under Section 142 of the Customs Act, ordering repayment of ₹17,96,125 with interest under Section 11BB and stating that recovery must await adjudication.

CESTAT Allahabad held that accepting an enhanced customs value in writing does not waive the right to appeal under Section 128, Customs Act, 1962. It confirms that such acceptance does not invoke estoppel, safeguarding importers who may inadvertently acknowledge higher valuations during clearance.

The Supreme Court quashed a Rs 425 crore Section 114 Customs Act penalty after finding the order relied on AI-generated citations that were non-existent or mis-quoted. It imposed a zero-tolerance rule for unverified AI material, rendering such decisions void and urging verification by customs officials and litigants.

Customs officials must possess a reasonable belief before seizing goods, and the onus under Sec 123 cannot be shifted to the accused without proper justification. This ruling curtails arbitrary confiscation of gold and safeguards importers from unjust seizure.

The Chennai Customs Tribunal ruled that body control modules, integrated body units and tyre-pressure-monitor systems are to be classified under heading 9032 as automatic regulating apparatus, not under heading 8708 as vehicle parts. Consequently, importers can claim the lower concessional duty rates prescribed for 9032. The holding benefits manufacturers and importers of automotive ECUs.

The tribunal ruled that imported spares and accessories used for modernising coke-oven plants fall within the definition of capital goods under Notification 104/2009, entitling the importer to SHIS duty credit. This interpretation overturns the earlier duty demand of Rs 1.30 million and benefits exporters-turn-importers seeking capital-goods exemptions.

The Eastern Zonal Bench of CESTAT set aside Rs 1 lakh penalties on a customs broker and its G-Card holder, holding that liability under Sec 112(a)(ii) requires proof of prior knowledge of the mis-declaration. The decision limits customs authorities from penalising intermediaries absent such knowledge, affecting all licensed brokers and G-Card holders.

Bombay High Court reinforces that contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, require concrete evidence of wilful disobedience, not just bare allegations. The ruling underscores judicial restraint in contempt cases, protecting public officials from frivolous litigation while upholding the sanctity of court orders.

CESTAT Allahabad rules that confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act cannot stand without affording the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses and corroborating retracted statements. The tribunal sets aside orders imposing ₹61.9 lakh duty drawback recovery and penalties, reinforcing natural justice in adjudication proceedings.

CESTAT Kolkata rules that mere possession of unmarked gold, without any corroborating intelligence or border-crossing context, cannot invoke the Section 123 presumption of smuggling. The burden remains squarely on the Revenue to prove intent and illicit movement, reinforcing procedural safeguards for travelers and traders against speculative seizures.

CESTAT Kolkata has ruled that importers who submit a valid emission certificate issued by a Ministry-empanelled laboratory cannot be penalized under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act merely because the Type Approval certificate is missing. This sets a critical precedent for environmental compliance in customs clearance, protecting bonafide importers from disproportionate penalties when core environmental standards are met.