Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Requested cross-examination under Regulation 17(4) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is mandatory where witness statements are relied upon in penalty proceedings against a Customs Broker. If cross-examination cannot be provided despite a specific request, those statements cannot support the penalty. Contradictory statements from the proprietor and F-card holder, coupled with failure to examine the person who entrusted clearance work to the broker, undermined the evidentiary basis. The penalty order was set aside and remanded for consideration of cross-examination and fresh adjudication according to law.
Requested cross-examination under Regulation 17(4) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is mandatory where witness statements are relied upon in penalty proceedings against a Customs Broker. If cross-examination cannot be provided despite a specific request, those statements cannot support the penalty. Contradictory statements from the proprietor and F-card holder, coupled with failure to examine the person who entrusted clearance work to the broker, undermined the evidentiary basis. The penalty order was set aside and remanded for consideration of cross-examination and fresh adjudication according to law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
