Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 95673 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.