Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.
At the Section 26 prima facie stage, the Commission may close an information where the informant does not place complete and substantiating material. The Tribunal noted that general assertions on unilateral pricing, unfair tender terms, discounts, losses, price distortion and market harm were unsupported by actual data on cost sheets, margins, losses, market exit, price effects or share erosion, so the allegations did not cross the evidentiary threshold for investigation. It also accepted that, in a regulated alcohol market, pricing was linked to taxes, levies and State policy, and that alleged preferential treatment in tendering was not shown by comparative market data to have distorted competition. The closure under Section 26(2) was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
