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 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 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, a customs broker, was found responsible for advising the importer to follow rules and regulations governing clearance of imported goods, and any non-compliance should have been brought to the customs authorities' notice. The appellant suggested the importer mis-declare the imported goods, described as "blank guns" which could have been modified into lethal weapons, to circumvent requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Arms Act, 1959 read with the Arms Rules, 2016. The appellant had knowledge of such mis-declaration and mis-classification under CTH 9503 as "Blank Firing Guns," requiring a DGFT license under the import policy and a license under the Arms Act. The factual findings led to the forfeiture of the security deposit. As the case involved only factual findings, no substantial questions of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant, a customs broker, was found responsible for advising the importer to follow rules and regulations governing clearance of imported goods, and any non-compliance should have been brought to the customs authorities' notice. The appellant suggested the importer mis-declare the imported goods, described as "blank guns" which could have been modified into lethal weapons, to circumvent requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Arms Act, 1959 read with the Arms Rules, 2016. The appellant had knowledge of such mis-declaration and mis-classification under CTH 9503 as "Blank Firing Guns," requiring a DGFT license under the import policy and a license under the Arms Act. The factual findings led to the forfeiture of the security deposit. As the case involved only factual findings, no substantial questions of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
