Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
A case concerning the suspension of a warehousing operation, alleged breach of conditions for operating a public bonded warehouse, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's findings that there was no breach of license conditions, based on the record and permissions granted by Customs authorities for unloading/storing goods under their supervision. The allegations of misinterpreting permissions were found baseless. The CESTAT correctly overlooked procedural issues not raised earlier regarding advance discharge permission and mandatory filing of Bills of Entry before vessel arrival. With no breach of license terms or confiscation of goods, the CESTAT rightly set aside penalties u/ss 117 and 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act for alleged violations like non-reporting of time-expired bonds, storage of non-bonded goods, and lack of audit trail facilities. No substantial question of law arose, and the Appeal was dismissed.
A case concerning the suspension of a warehousing operation, alleged breach of conditions for operating a public bonded warehouse, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The High Court upheld the CESTAT's findings that there was no breach of license conditions, based on the record and permissions granted by Customs authorities for unloading/storing goods under their supervision. The allegations of misinterpreting permissions were found baseless. The CESTAT correctly overlooked procedural issues not raised earlier regarding advance discharge permission and mandatory filing of Bills of Entry before vessel arrival. With no breach of license terms or confiscation of goods, the CESTAT rightly set aside penalties u/ss 117 and 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act for alleged violations like non-reporting of time-expired bonds, storage of non-bonded goods, and lack of audit trail facilities. No substantial question of law arose, and the Appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
