Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Misdeclaration of goods regarding value and quantity - goods declared as 'unbranded', but branded caps of various brands like Puma, Nike, Adidas etc. found - infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. Reliability of electronic evidence retrieved from appellant's email discussed. Extended period of limitation applicable. Appellant suppressed/underdeclared value of goods based on excel sheets retrieved from email showing higher values than declared in Bills of Entry. Differential duty demand confirmed based on redetermined value. Electronic evidence admissible without certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as per Supreme Court's decision. Appellant manipulated invoices and misdeclared value in Bills of Entry with intent to evade duty, violating Sections 17(1) and 46 of Customs Act, 1962. Extended period of five years for duty demand u/s 28(4) invokable due to suppression of facts and misstatement. Appellant liable for differential duty and interest. Contention of Bills of Entry once assessed cannot be reassessed rejected, as duty short paid can be demanded u/s 28 within limitation period. Data from appellant's mobile admissible, certificate u/s 138C not required. No infirmity in redetermining value and quantum. Appeal dismissed.
Misdeclaration of goods regarding value and quantity - goods declared as 'unbranded', but branded caps of various brands like Puma, Nike, Adidas etc. found - infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007. Reliability of electronic evidence retrieved from appellant's email discussed. Extended period of limitation applicable. Appellant suppressed/underdeclared value of goods based on excel sheets retrieved from email showing higher values than declared in Bills of Entry. Differential duty demand confirmed based on redetermined value. Electronic evidence admissible without certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as per Supreme Court's decision. Appellant manipulated invoices and misdeclared value in Bills of Entry with intent to evade duty, violating Sections 17(1) and 46 of Customs Act, 1962. Extended period of five years for duty demand u/s 28(4) invokable due to suppression of facts and misstatement. Appellant liable for differential duty and interest. Contention of Bills of Entry once assessed cannot be reassessed rejected, as duty short paid can be demanded u/s 28 within limitation period. Data from appellant's mobile admissible, certificate u/s 138C not required. No infirmity in redetermining value and quantum. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
