Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Re-export of seized imported goods was permitted because the goods had remained under seizure for over a year, samples had already been drawn and tested, and their continued retention served no useful purpose. The Court did not examine the merits of the allegations of misclassification, undervaluation, or breach of minimum import price conditions. As the respondents did not seriously oppose re-export, permission was granted subject to safeguards: execution of a bond for the differential duty liability and furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to 5% of the re-determined value.
Re-export of seized imported goods was permitted because the goods had remained under seizure for over a year, samples had already been drawn and tested, and their continued retention served no useful purpose. The Court did not examine the merits of the allegations of misclassification, undervaluation, or breach of minimum import price conditions. As the respondents did not seriously oppose re-export, permission was granted subject to safeguards: execution of a bond for the differential duty liability and furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to 5% of the re-determined value.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
