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 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
