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...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - Charge of abatement - Connivance between the employee of the CHA and importer - Illegal Import - prohibited goods - the appellant under the influence of the importer, filed the bills of entry without completing the KYC formalities. Further, from the appreciation of the facts and on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no case of connivance is made out against the appellant /employee i.e. no allegation or finding of any additional gain or reward received by him. - appellant has unknowingly abetted or been instrumental in the nefarious activity of the import of the prohibited goods, by the actual importer. - Penalty levied, but reduced.
Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - Charge of abatement - Connivance between the employee of the CHA and importer - Illegal Import - prohibited goods - the appellant under the influence of the importer, filed the bills of entry without completing the KYC formalities. Further, from the appreciation of the facts and on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that no case of connivance is made out against the appellant /employee i.e. no allegation or finding of any additional gain or reward received by him. - appellant has unknowingly abetted or been instrumental in the nefarious activity of the import of the prohibited goods, by the actual importer. - Penalty levied, but reduced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
