Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.
Confiscation of old and used multi-function devices was sustained only because they were restricted second-hand electronics and IT goods imported without required DGFT authorisation; the related redemption fine and importer penalty were reduced. The Tribunal rejected the other grounds of confiscation: the CRO, 2021 exemption for highly specialised equipment was found to rest on objective criteria and was wrongly denied; WPC approval could not be insisted on without affirmative proof of wireless capability; non-compliance with hazardous-waste import conditions was not proved in light of valid EPR authorisation and post-import inspection; and valuation re-determination alone did not establish wilful misdeclaration. Penalty on the Director under Section 114AA was set aside for lack of proof of knowing use of false documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
