Faceless assessment and registration procedures are updated through electronic communication, revised recovery rules, extended deadlines, and replacem...
Risk-based selective vessel boarding requires accurate declarations and preserves master and agent liability where physical inspections are not select...
Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within st...
Smuggling - foreign origin Gold - burden to prove - The tribunal clarified that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, solely rested on the person claiming ownership of the seized goods, in this case, the appellant who claimed to have purchased the gold legally. It was deemed that the appellants had discharged their burden by providing substantial documentary evidence supporting their claim of lawful acquisition from Snehal Gems Pvt Ltd. - The tribunal found that the Department failed to disprove the appellants' claim of legal purchase or to conclusively prove that the goods were procured through illegal means.
Smuggling - foreign origin Gold - burden to prove - The tribunal clarified that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, solely rested on the person claiming ownership of the seized goods, in this case, the appellant who claimed to have purchased the gold legally. It was deemed that the appellants had discharged their burden by providing substantial documentary evidence supporting their claim of lawful acquisition from Snehal Gems Pvt Ltd. - The tribunal found that the Department failed to disprove the appellants' claim of legal purchase or to conclusively prove that the goods were procured through illegal means.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
