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" ?
Imported LCD panels were correctly classified under CTH 9013 because the goods had to be assessed as imported, and a specific heading naming liquid crystal devices prevails over generic motor-vehicle parts headings in CTH 8708/8714. Note 2(g) to Section XVII excludes Chapter 90 articles, and Note 3 could not override that exclusion merely because the panels were suitable for use in automotive instrument clusters. The Tribunal also rejected allegations of misdeclaration and suppression, finding no statutory requirement to declare end-use in the manner suggested, and that the Bills of Entry and supporting documents accurately described the goods. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 28(4) was unavailable.
Imported LCD panels were correctly classified under CTH 9013 because the goods had to be assessed as imported, and a specific heading naming liquid crystal devices prevails over generic motor-vehicle parts headings in CTH 8708/8714. Note 2(g) to Section XVII excludes Chapter 90 articles, and Note 3 could not override that exclusion merely because the panels were suitable for use in automotive instrument clusters. The Tribunal also rejected allegations of misdeclaration and suppression, finding no statutory requirement to declare end-use in the manner suggested, and that the Bills of Entry and supporting documents accurately described the goods. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 28(4) was unavailable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
