Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Section 127C(5) requires the Settlement Commission to provide a...
Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent adjudication.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Section 127C(5) requires the Settlement Commission to provide a settlement applicant an opportunity to address a jurisdictional Commissioner's report before relying on it to enhance customs duty liability. Non-supply of the report breached that statutory requirement and principles of natural justice, requiring the settlement order to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. Separate settlement applications arising from the same seized imported goods were intrinsically connected and required a consistent approach. The differing treatment of the Revenue report lacked a discernible basis; therefore, the related subsequent order was also quashed and remanded, with all merits left open.
Section 127C(5) requires the Settlement Commission to provide a settlement applicant an opportunity to address a jurisdictional Commissioner's report before relying on it to enhance customs duty liability. Non-supply of the report breached that statutory requirement and principles of natural justice, requiring the settlement order to be quashed and remanded for fresh consideration. Separate settlement applications arising from the same seized imported goods were intrinsically connected and required a consistent approach. The differing treatment of the Revenue report lacked a discernible basis; therefore, the related subsequent order was also quashed and remanded, with all merits left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
