Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Levy of penalty u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act without evidence of abetment in the export of red sanders. The appellant failed to obtain and verify the KYC of the exporter for whom they filed the shipping bill, violating Regulation 11 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 2004. They also failed to advise their client to comply with the Customs Act 1962 and the Shipping Bill of Export Regulations 1991. The Tribunal held that the violation of CHALR alone cannot constitute abetment without evidence of the appellant's knowledge about the illegal export. Mere violation of CHALR without knowledge cannot sustain penalties u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Levy of penalty u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act without evidence of abetment in the export of red sanders. The appellant failed to obtain and verify the KYC of the exporter for whom they filed the shipping bill, violating Regulation 11 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR) 2004. They also failed to advise their client to comply with the Customs Act 1962 and the Shipping Bill of Export Regulations 1991. The Tribunal held that the violation of CHALR alone cannot constitute abetment without evidence of the appellant's knowledge about the illegal export. Mere violation of CHALR without knowledge cannot sustain penalties u/ss 114(i) and 114(iii). The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
