Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 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 117 - connivance in overvaluation of goods imported - Employees of the Customs Broker - A perusal of the impugned order does not point out as to what was expected of the present appellant, being one of innumerable employees of the Customs Broker, as his duty to comply with, which the appellant had ‘failed’ to perform. Insofar as this appellant is concerned, the Commissioner himself has observed that there was no direct evidence of connivance. - No penalty - AT
Levy of penalty u/s 117 - connivance in overvaluation of goods imported - Employees of the Customs Broker - A perusal of the impugned order does not point out as to what was expected of the present appellant, being one of innumerable employees of the Customs Broker, as his duty to comply with, which the appellant had ‘failed’ to perform. Insofar as this appellant is concerned, the Commissioner himself has observed that there was no direct evidence of connivance. - No penalty - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
