Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4780
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 95596 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT Bangalore heard a case involving a Customs Broker accused of smuggling Red Sander Logs. The issue of forfeiture of security deposit was raised, but the Tribunal found the notice issuance within 90 days, complying with Regulation (20) of CBLR 2013. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination was raised, but as the broker failed to appear for scheduled cross-examinations, this claim was dismissed. Violation of Section 11(n) of CBLR 2013 was established as the broker failed to verify antecedents and other details of the exporter. Despite this, the Tribunal noted no evidence of conspiracy in smuggling and deemed the penalty of Rs.25,000 for security deposit forfeiture sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the forfeiture decision.
CESTAT Bangalore heard a case involving a Customs Broker accused of smuggling Red Sander Logs. The issue of forfeiture of security deposit was raised, but the Tribunal found the notice issuance within 90 days, complying with Regulation (20) of CBLR 2013. The lack of opportunity for cross-examination was raised, but as the broker failed to appear for scheduled cross-examinations, this claim was dismissed. Violation of Section 11(n) of CBLR 2013 was established as the broker failed to verify antecedents and other details of the exporter. Despite this, the Tribunal noted no evidence of conspiracy in smuggling and deemed the penalty of Rs.25,000 for security deposit forfeiture sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the forfeiture decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
