Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Deliberate misclassification of optical network terminals as subscriber end equipment, coupled with an ineligible exemption claim, justified invocation of the extended limitation period for customs-duty recovery. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods, continued use of the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and equipment approval identifying the goods as GPON ONT supported an inference of intentional duty evasion. The importer's oral assertion that the classification issue had not previously been raised did not rebut those circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the customs-duty demand and dismissed the appeals.
Deliberate misclassification of optical network terminals as subscriber end equipment, coupled with an ineligible exemption claim, justified invocation of the extended limitation period for customs-duty recovery. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods, continued use of the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and equipment approval identifying the goods as GPON ONT supported an inference of intentional duty evasion. The importer's oral assertion that the classification issue had not previously been raised did not rebut those circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the customs-duty demand and dismissed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.