Prospective customs notification amendments cannot bar provisional release consideration for earlier imports when bills of lading predate their commen...
Personal guarantor insolvency jurisdiction follows the corporate debtor's CIRP Bench, enabling inter-territorial transfer and preventing parallel proc...
Section 47-A undervaluation threshold: fraudulent intent requirement faces reconsideration after referral to a larger Bench for authoritative resoluti...
RBI supersession powers over multi-State co-operative banks operate independently of the constitutional six-month ceiling and permit statutory extensi...
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 4891 
