Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
