Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
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...
Section 129A of the Customs Act does not create a Tribunal appeal where the underlying statute does not provide one. In the context of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, the Tribunal noted that those Regulations allow a representation to the Chief Commissioner against an order under regulation 13(1), but do not provide a further appeal against the order passed in such proceedings. It also accepted that such orders are not decisions under the Customs Act for section 129A purposes. The appeal against the Principal Chief Commissioner's order on forfeiture of security and penalty was therefore dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.
Section 129A of the Customs Act does not create a Tribunal appeal where the underlying statute does not provide one. In the context of the Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010, the Tribunal noted that those Regulations allow a representation to the Chief Commissioner against an order under regulation 13(1), but do not provide a further appeal against the order passed in such proceedings. It also accepted that such orders are not decisions under the Customs Act for section 129A purposes. The appeal against the Principal Chief Commissioner's order on forfeiture of security and penalty was therefore dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.