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...
Food testing kits were held classifiable under CTI 3822 00 90, not CTI 3822 00 19, because they were meant for food testing and not diagnostic use; the importer's claim to exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus for diagnostic test kits therefore failed. The Tribunal also held that describing the goods as "Diagnostic use only" in self-assessment amounted to conscious misdeclaration, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation. On that basis, the penalties imposed on the importer and its directors were upheld, and the impugned order was sustained in full.
Food testing kits were held classifiable under CTI 3822 00 90, not CTI 3822 00 19, because they were meant for food testing and not diagnostic use; the importer's claim to exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus for diagnostic test kits therefore failed. The Tribunal also held that describing the goods as "Diagnostic use only" in self-assessment amounted to conscious misdeclaration, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation. On that basis, the penalties imposed on the importer and its directors were upheld, and the impugned order was sustained in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
