Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.