Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Foreign customs declarations and importer admissions established undervaluation, supporting sequential value redetermination, differential duty, and m...
Customs seizure safeguards prevent detention-based limitation avoidance and invalidate provisional release conditions for imported vehicles under an i...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant, Container Corporation of India, was granted custodianship as a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009. The approval of CCSP is subject to conditions under Regulation 5, and responsibilities are outlined in Regulation 6. During the renewal process, discrepancies were found regarding non-compliance with Regulations 5(1)(i)(c)(f)(g)(n) and clause (iii), leading to penalties under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. Additionally, the custodian operated from an area not notified u/s 8 of the Customs Act, 1962, violating Sections 45, 7, and 8, resulting in a penalty u/s 117. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalties but reduced the amounts to Rs. 10,000/- under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009, and Rs. 25,000/- u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The appellant, Container Corporation of India, was granted custodianship as a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009. The approval of CCSP is subject to conditions under Regulation 5, and responsibilities are outlined in Regulation 6. During the renewal process, discrepancies were found regarding non-compliance with Regulations 5(1)(i)(c)(f)(g)(n) and clause (iii), leading to penalties under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. Additionally, the custodian operated from an area not notified u/s 8 of the Customs Act, 1962, violating Sections 45, 7, and 8, resulting in a penalty u/s 117. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the penalties but reduced the amounts to Rs. 10,000/- under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009, and Rs. 25,000/- u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
