Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Statutory interest on a refunded investigation deposit treated as a pre-deposit is confined to the rate prescribed by the governing provision and notification. Where the statute creates the right to interest and fixes the rate, the claimant cannot seek a higher amount on equitable or restitutionary grounds unless the provision or notification itself is challenged. Applying that principle, the Court upheld interest at 6% per annum and rejected the claim for a higher rate, holding that no substantial question of law arose and dismissing the appeal.
Statutory interest on a refunded investigation deposit treated as a pre-deposit is confined to the rate prescribed by the governing provision and notification. Where the statute creates the right to interest and fixes the rate, the claimant cannot seek a higher amount on equitable or restitutionary grounds unless the provision or notification itself is challenged. Applying that principle, the Court upheld interest at 6% per annum and rejected the claim for a higher rate, holding that no substantial question of law arose and dismissing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.