Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
