Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
201 to 220 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved a penalty u/s 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 against an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) for allegedly concealing information affecting a bill of entry assessment. The tribunal found no evidence linking the employee to the concealed branded goods in the consignment, nor any indication of his involvement in handling the goods. Goods were confiscated u/s 111(m) due to incorrect declaration, but the employee was not proven aware of the branded products. As a result, the tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant.
The case involved a penalty u/s 112(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 against an employee of a Customs House Agent (CHA) for allegedly concealing information affecting a bill of entry assessment. The tribunal found no evidence linking the employee to the concealed branded goods in the consignment, nor any indication of his involvement in handling the goods. Goods were confiscated u/s 111(m) due to incorrect declaration, but the employee was not proven aware of the branded products. As a result, the tribunal set aside the penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
