Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 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" ?
Breach of the secure transit obligation under cargo handling regulations, by itself, did not establish abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods. The essential basis for penalty under Section 114 was knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, or admissible evidence of active participation or positive collusion, and that evidentiary burden was not met. A mere omission in secure transport, without proof of such knowledge or abetment, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Breach of the secure transit obligation under cargo handling regulations, by itself, did not establish abetment of attempted export of prohibited goods. The essential basis for penalty under Section 114 was knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation, or admissible evidence of active participation or positive collusion, and that evidentiary burden was not met. A mere omission in secure transport, without proof of such knowledge or abetment, was insufficient. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.