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...
Benefit of abatement under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Determination of Capacity and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - whether the appellant could suo motu claim abatement - Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was justified in claiming suo motu rebate under rule 10 of the 2010 Rules. - AT
Benefit of abatement under Rule 10 of Chewing Tobacco and Un-manufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Determination of Capacity and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - whether the appellant could suo motu claim abatement - Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was justified in claiming suo motu rebate under rule 10 of the 2010 Rules. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.