Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants' request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.
Imposition of penalties on the appellants u/ss 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the appellants' request for cross-examination of witnesses, violating the principles of natural justice. The statements relied upon were inadmissible as evidence u/s 138B, requiring examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Furthermore, the electronic documents lacked the requisite certificate u/s 138C, rendering them inadmissible. Crucially, no mala fide act or omission was established to warrant penalties u/ss 112(a) and 114AA. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order upholding the penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
