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...
Enhancement of penalty, levied on Employee of CHA - appellant was reckless and negligent in using the Customs House Agent Licence of his Employer. - Smuggling - red Sander Woods - it is incorrect to say that the Appellant is liable only under the Regulations for any violation and contravention and if the action under the Regulations is not sufficient for the grave offence, there is no legal impediment to proceed against the employee / appellant of the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations. - There is no mala fide or infirmity in the order of imposition penalty at ₹ 5,00,000/ - HC
Enhancement of penalty, levied on Employee of CHA - appellant was reckless and negligent in using the Customs House Agent Licence of his Employer. - Smuggling - red Sander Woods - it is incorrect to say that the Appellant is liable only under the Regulations for any violation and contravention and if the action under the Regulations is not sufficient for the grave offence, there is no legal impediment to proceed against the employee / appellant of the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations. - There is no mala fide or infirmity in the order of imposition penalty at ₹ 5,00,000/ - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
