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...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
A High Court held that an investigation-stage communication issued after the petitioner's representative indicated willingness to pay differential duty was not a statutory demand fastening customs liability, so the communication was quashed and the department was required to commence regular adjudication by issuing a show cause notice. The Court also held that payment made during investigation, whether under protest or otherwise, does not bar adjudication and may be appropriated only against the final liability determined in that process. Refund of the amount deposited during investigation was declined, and no further demand or recovery was permitted until adjudication was completed.
A High Court held that an investigation-stage communication issued after the petitioner's representative indicated willingness to pay differential duty was not a statutory demand fastening customs liability, so the communication was quashed and the department was required to commence regular adjudication by issuing a show cause notice. The Court also held that payment made during investigation, whether under protest or otherwise, does not bar adjudication and may be appropriated only against the final liability determined in that process. Refund of the amount deposited during investigation was declined, and no further demand or recovery was permitted until adjudication was completed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
