Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The penalty imposed u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (a Customs Broker) for abetting the clearance of undeclared/mis-declared export goods was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the penalty imposed u/s 114AA was set aside as the appellant was not responsible for forging any documents and the ingredients specified in Section 114AA were not present. The CESTAT held that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 provide for penal action upon the Customs Broker for failing to fulfill obligations, and penal proceedings could have been initiated under the relevant provisions of the said Regulations.
The penalty imposed u/s 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant (a Customs Broker) for abetting the clearance of undeclared/mis-declared export goods was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, the penalty imposed u/s 114AA was set aside as the appellant was not responsible for forging any documents and the ingredients specified in Section 114AA were not present. The CESTAT held that the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 provide for penal action upon the Customs Broker for failing to fulfill obligations, and penal proceedings could have been initiated under the relevant provisions of the said Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
