Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Written acceptance of an enhanced import value does not, by itself, extinguish the importer's right to challenge reassessment or rejection of the declared transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the importers' letters sought provisional or final clearance on payment under protest, so the facts were not of unconditional consent simpliciter. Relying on Niraj Silk Mills and Hanuman Prasad & Sons, it held that such acceptance may relieve the proper officer of issuing a speaking order under Section 17(5), but it does not amount to abandonment of the statutory right to dispute the reassessment. Orders rejecting the appeals solely on that basis were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.
Written acceptance of an enhanced import value does not, by itself, extinguish the importer's right to challenge reassessment or rejection of the declared transaction value. The Tribunal noted that the importers' letters sought provisional or final clearance on payment under protest, so the facts were not of unconditional consent simpliciter. Relying on Niraj Silk Mills and Hanuman Prasad & Sons, it held that such acceptance may relieve the proper officer of issuing a speaking order under Section 17(5), but it does not amount to abandonment of the statutory right to dispute the reassessment. Orders rejecting the appeals solely on that basis were therefore unsustainable and were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.