Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty against a customs broker failed where the import dispute was treated as an interpretational classification issue and the importer had already been exonerated for absence of mala fide intent. On those facts, a broker who merely filed Bills of Entry on the importer's instructions could not be said to have abetted evasion, and the ingredients for penalty based on false declaration were not made out. The Tribunal also held that the objection on invocation of the larger period would apply equally to the appellants. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were deleted and the appeals were allowed.
Penalty against a customs broker failed where the import dispute was treated as an interpretational classification issue and the importer had already been exonerated for absence of mala fide intent. On those facts, a broker who merely filed Bills of Entry on the importer's instructions could not be said to have abetted evasion, and the ingredients for penalty based on false declaration were not made out. The Tribunal also held that the objection on invocation of the larger period would apply equally to the appellants. The penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA were deleted and the appeals were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.