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...
Authorization to the SFIO Director to present attachment and disgorgement proceedings in the Union of India's name does not constitute delegation of statutory power where the Central Government has already considered the investigation report, decided to institute proceedings, and retains essential decision-making discretion. The application was therefore validly instituted through an authorised officer. Disgorgement and asset-freezing relief for oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent conduct are not confined to Section 212(14A); they may also be pursued under the statutory framework governing such conduct. The challenge to SFIO's authority and the claim that Section 212(14A) was the exclusive source of disgorgement power were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.
Authorization to the SFIO Director to present attachment and disgorgement proceedings in the Union of India's name does not constitute delegation of statutory power where the Central Government has already considered the investigation report, decided to institute proceedings, and retains essential decision-making discretion. The application was therefore validly instituted through an authorised officer. Disgorgement and asset-freezing relief for oppression, mismanagement and fraudulent conduct are not confined to Section 212(14A); they may also be pursued under the statutory framework governing such conduct. The challenge to SFIO's authority and the claim that Section 212(14A) was the exclusive source of disgorgement power were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
