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 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imported zircon sand was treated as zirconium ore concentrate, not ore, because the classification turned on Chapter Notes, HSN Explanatory Notes and the treatment applied to the mined material, not merely metal content. The exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE was therefore unavailable, and the differential duty with interest was upheld under strict construction of exemption notifications. The challenge based on denial of cross-examination of the chemical examiner failed because no prejudice was shown and the report was not the sole basis of decision. Penalty was set aside, as the dispute was interpretational and did not warrant penal action.
Imported zircon sand was treated as zirconium ore concentrate, not ore, because the classification turned on Chapter Notes, HSN Explanatory Notes and the treatment applied to the mined material, not merely metal content. The exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE was therefore unavailable, and the differential duty with interest was upheld under strict construction of exemption notifications. The challenge based on denial of cross-examination of the chemical examiner failed because no prejudice was shown and the report was not the sole basis of decision. Penalty was set aside, as the dispute was interpretational and did not warrant penal action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.