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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Appellate jurisdiction is not excluded merely because an article...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary stage.
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
Appellate jurisdiction is not excluded merely because an article is recovered from an international passenger at an airport. The exclusion for goods imported or exported as baggage applies only where the challenged order clearly and unambiguously concerns goods having that character. A gold kada worn on a passenger's wrist could not, at the preliminary stage, conclusively be treated as baggage; whether it was a personal ornament, bona fide personal effect, declarable article, or concealed goods required merits examination. Departmental characterisation cannot determine jurisdiction, and authorities involving goods recovered from luggage or admitted baggage are distinguishable. The appeal was therefore maintainable and listed for disposal on merits.
Appellate jurisdiction is not excluded merely because an article is recovered from an international passenger at an airport. The exclusion for goods imported or exported as baggage applies only where the challenged order clearly and unambiguously concerns goods having that character. A gold kada worn on a passenger's wrist could not, at the preliminary stage, conclusively be treated as baggage; whether it was a personal ornament, bona fide personal effect, declarable article, or concealed goods required merits examination. Departmental characterisation cannot determine jurisdiction, and authorities involving goods recovered from luggage or admitted baggage are distinguishable. The appeal was therefore maintainable and listed for disposal on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
