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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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" ?
Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer's penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor's penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.
Transaction value in customs valuation was upheld because the Department failed to prove undervaluation with cogent, admissible and corroborated evidence. Parallel invoices were unauthenticated, overseas verification was untested by cross-examination, insurance values and e-mails were unreliable, and retracted statements lacked independent corroboration; the declared price could not therefore be rejected. As the re-determination of assessable value collapsed, the differential duty demand, confiscation and importer's penalty also failed, and no independent evidence supported the abettor's penalty. The extended period of limitation was likewise unsustainable because suppression or wilful misstatement was not proved, rendering the demand time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
