Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act - detention of yacht - suspicion of foul play - evasion of Customs Duty - The initial burden to prove proper importation, under Section 123 ibid. was on the notices, some of whom have accepted the liability and thereby resulting in the non-discharge of the burden. The natural consequence which flows from the above is that the burden cast on the notices remained un-discharged and hence, they have to suffer consequence, namely the penalties in this case. This is because, they have all been identified to be part of different sides but of the same transaction. - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act - detention of yacht - suspicion of foul play - evasion of Customs Duty - The initial burden to prove proper importation, under Section 123 ibid. was on the notices, some of whom have accepted the liability and thereby resulting in the non-discharge of the burden. The natural consequence which flows from the above is that the burden cast on the notices remained un-discharged and hence, they have to suffer consequence, namely the penalties in this case. This is because, they have all been identified to be part of different sides but of the same transaction. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
