Strict construction of customs exemptions denied concession for brake components, while limitation restricted differential duty to timely Bills of Ent...
Way Leave Permissions cannot be retrospectively revived through insolvency plans, and affected infrastructure holders require safety review and hearin...
Inter-terminal container movement requires customs escort, permit reconciliation, and indemnity, while delayed DPD cargo may move to designated CFS ya...
The appellants were found involved in smuggling one cut piece of foreign origin gold weighing 645.500 grams. A concealed the gold in his shoe to deliver it outside the airport premises, while B abetted the offense. Both were held liable for penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering their lack of prior antecedents and not being owners or beneficiaries, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on them from Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The appellants were found involved in smuggling one cut piece of foreign origin gold weighing 645.500 grams. A concealed the gold in his shoe to deliver it outside the airport premises, while B abetted the offense. Both were held liable for penalties u/ss 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering their lack of prior antecedents and not being owners or beneficiaries, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalties imposed on them from Rs. 5,00,000/- each to Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
