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...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revocation of CHA License - Customs Broker resorted to unprofessional methods while clearing the goods imported vide Bill of Entry - It was revealed during the investigation that an employee of the appellant's office had manipulated the redemption fine and penalty amounts in the Order-in-Original, leading to the overcharging of the importer. - While the tribunal acknowledged the manipulation in the Order-in-Original, the crux of the decision rested on procedural irregularities rather than the merits of the fabrication allegations. - The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural timelines outlined in Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. It noted that the absence of a specific offence report and the delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice beyond the prescribed period rendered the proceedings against the appellant invalid.
Revocation of CHA License - Customs Broker resorted to unprofessional methods while clearing the goods imported vide Bill of Entry - It was revealed during the investigation that an employee of the appellant's office had manipulated the redemption fine and penalty amounts in the Order-in-Original, leading to the overcharging of the importer. - While the tribunal acknowledged the manipulation in the Order-in-Original, the crux of the decision rested on procedural irregularities rather than the merits of the fabrication allegations. - The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural timelines outlined in Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. It noted that the absence of a specific offence report and the delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice beyond the prescribed period rendered the proceedings against the appellant invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
