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...
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on an employee of the Customs Broker - classification of imported goods - The commissioner has recorded as finding that responsibility for proper declaration of the goods lies with the importer and having sought for examination of the goods before assessment, there was no element of mis-declaration on the part of customs broker and the employee (appellant) attracting imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) - However, commissioner levied penalty on the ground that, employee of CB did not advise the importer to classify the goods correctly - Tribunal deleted the penalty.
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on an employee of the Customs Broker - classification of imported goods - The commissioner has recorded as finding that responsibility for proper declaration of the goods lies with the importer and having sought for examination of the goods before assessment, there was no element of mis-declaration on the part of customs broker and the employee (appellant) attracting imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) - However, commissioner levied penalty on the ground that, employee of CB did not advise the importer to classify the goods correctly - Tribunal deleted the penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
