Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
