Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority erred in affirming the re-assessment and levy of anti-dumping duty (ADD) u/s 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, without any material on record to determine whether the re-assessment conformed to the framework of the notification. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the assessment by the original authority. The absence of the importer's consent for alteration of the assessment and the lack of scrutiny of the entry u/s 46 of the Customs Act invalidated the impugned orders ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority erred in affirming the re-assessment and levy of anti-dumping duty (ADD) u/s 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, without any material on record to determine whether the re-assessment conformed to the framework of the notification. The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the assessment by the original authority. The absence of the importer's consent for alteration of the assessment and the lack of scrutiny of the entry u/s 46 of the Customs Act invalidated the impugned orders ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.