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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A steamer agent's penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside because it filed the IGM on the Master's declarations, promptly sought amendment on confirmation of the retained onboard cargo, and there was no evidence of conscious involvement, connivance, aiding, abetting, or deliberate suppression. The Tribunal held that a mere procedural lapse, inadvertent omission, or communication failure is insufficient for penal liability. It also ruled that retained onboard cargo which remained continuously on the vessel, was never unloaded in India, and was discharged abroad did not acquire the character of imported goods and therefore was not liable to confiscation under Section 111.
A steamer agent's penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside because it filed the IGM on the Master's declarations, promptly sought amendment on confirmation of the retained onboard cargo, and there was no evidence of conscious involvement, connivance, aiding, abetting, or deliberate suppression. The Tribunal held that a mere procedural lapse, inadvertent omission, or communication failure is insufficient for penal liability. It also ruled that retained onboard cargo which remained continuously on the vessel, was never unloaded in India, and was discharged abroad did not acquire the character of imported goods and therefore was not liable to confiscation under Section 111.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
