Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Independent professional certification requires pleaded knowledge or complicity for criminal liability; untimely complaints remain barred by limitatio...
The case pertains to the import of restricted goods, specifically marbles and mosaics, under the Import Policy at a value lower than the Minimum Import Price notified by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The importer violated DGFT Notifications by importing these items below the prescribed minimum prices of US$ 60 per SQM for marbles and US$ 80 per SQM for mosaics, rendering the imports liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, along with penalties. The Adjudicating Authority initially ordered confiscation and penalties, but the importer agreed to enhance the value as per the Minimum Import Price. The CESTAT upheld the demand for duty at the enhanced value based on the Minimum Import Price but set aside the confiscation and penalties, partially allowing the appeal. The CESTAT held that once the value was enhanced as per the Notifications, there was no legal necessity to treat the imports as contravening the Acts.
The case pertains to the import of restricted goods, specifically marbles and mosaics, under the Import Policy at a value lower than the Minimum Import Price notified by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The importer violated DGFT Notifications by importing these items below the prescribed minimum prices of US$ 60 per SQM for marbles and US$ 80 per SQM for mosaics, rendering the imports liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, along with penalties. The Adjudicating Authority initially ordered confiscation and penalties, but the importer agreed to enhance the value as per the Minimum Import Price. The CESTAT upheld the demand for duty at the enhanced value based on the Minimum Import Price but set aside the confiscation and penalties, partially allowing the appeal. The CESTAT held that once the value was enhanced as per the Notifications, there was no legal necessity to treat the imports as contravening the Acts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
