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" ?
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Worked mica in the two live consignments was correctly classified under tariff item 68149090 because the test reports and physical examination showed processed mica beyond crude mica or mere rifting, and the differential duty on those consignments was upheld. Test reports from those consignments could not be extrapolated to past consignments without samples or evidence for each Bill of Entry, so the demand on the past 72 consignments was unsustainable. The dispute was held to be one of classification, with no suppression, willful misstatement or collusion shown, so extended limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked. As there was no material misdeclaration or false document, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties under Sections 111(m), 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
