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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Regulation 17 required the licensing authority to independently consider the inquiry report, the broker's representation and the material on record before deciding the case; an order that merely adopted the inquiry officer's conclusions without fact-specific findings failed legal scrutiny, so revocation, forfeiture and penalty could not stand. On the alleged overvaluation of export goods, no violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) or 10(n) was made out because there were no concrete findings of incorrect advice, withheld material, record-keeping default or failure of antecedent verification, and a Customs Broker had no role in determining export value negotiated between exporter and overseas buyer. Only Regulation 10(q) was attracted for non-participation in the inquiry proceedings, warranting a reduced penalty.
Regulation 17 required the licensing authority to independently consider the inquiry report, the broker's representation and the material on record before deciding the case; an order that merely adopted the inquiry officer's conclusions without fact-specific findings failed legal scrutiny, so revocation, forfeiture and penalty could not stand. On the alleged overvaluation of export goods, no violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(f), 10(k) or 10(n) was made out because there were no concrete findings of incorrect advice, withheld material, record-keeping default or failure of antecedent verification, and a Customs Broker had no role in determining export value negotiated between exporter and overseas buyer. Only Regulation 10(q) was attracted for non-participation in the inquiry proceedings, warranting a reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.