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 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Smuggling - Betel Nuts - foreign origin goods - town seizure - notified item or not - onus to prove - The CESTAT recognized that betel nuts were not notified items under the Customs Act and therefore, the burden of proving smuggling rested with the Revenue. The appellants produced documents during interception to prove legal procurement of the betel nuts, shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue. - Since the Revenue failed to prove that the intercepted betel nuts were smuggled, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the goods and waived any penalties on the appellants.
Smuggling - Betel Nuts - foreign origin goods - town seizure - notified item or not - onus to prove - The CESTAT recognized that betel nuts were not notified items under the Customs Act and therefore, the burden of proving smuggling rested with the Revenue. The appellants produced documents during interception to prove legal procurement of the betel nuts, shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue. - Since the Revenue failed to prove that the intercepted betel nuts were smuggled, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the goods and waived any penalties on the appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.