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 NCLAT held that there is sufficient justification for deletion of the Appellant as a party Respondent and removal of restraints on his movable and immovable property. The SFIO Final Report did not name the Appellant as an accused, and there were no specific allegations of wrongdoing against him. No charge of fraud or any other wrongful act was brought against the Appellant in the subsequent charge-sheet. The NCLT erred in observing that the Appellant had not been discharged by the criminal court, as there were no criminal proceedings pending against him. The withdrawal of the lookout circular was an additional proof that the Appellant was no longer a relevant party. While investigations can continue, the inordinately delayed investigation and consequential freeze of assets prejudicially affected the Appellant's rights. To meet the ends of justice, the NCLAT allowed the appeal, removing the Appellant's name from the list of Respondents and vacating the restraint/freeze on his assets.
The NCLAT held that there is sufficient justification for deletion of the Appellant as a party Respondent and removal of restraints on his movable and immovable property. The SFIO Final Report did not name the Appellant as an accused, and there were no specific allegations of wrongdoing against him. No charge of fraud or any other wrongful act was brought against the Appellant in the subsequent charge-sheet. The NCLT erred in observing that the Appellant had not been discharged by the criminal court, as there were no criminal proceedings pending against him. The withdrawal of the lookout circular was an additional proof that the Appellant was no longer a relevant party. While investigations can continue, the inordinately delayed investigation and consequential freeze of assets prejudicially affected the Appellant's rights. To meet the ends of justice, the NCLAT allowed the appeal, removing the Appellant's name from the list of Respondents and vacating the restraint/freeze on his assets.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
