Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
Respondent no. 5 - M/s Adel Landmark Limited's application for compounding offences u/s 276B and 278B was rejected as the competent authority [Chief CIT(TDS)] deemed petitioner's standalone application non-considerable. HC set aside the order, remanding to the competent authority to decide afresh per current guidelines, allowing co-accused to apply separately for compounding offences. Petition disposed accordingly.
Respondent no. 5 - M/s Adel Landmark Limited's application for compounding offences u/s 276B and 278B was rejected as the competent authority [Chief CIT(TDS)] deemed petitioner's standalone application non-considerable. HC set aside the order, remanding to the competent authority to decide afresh per current guidelines, allowing co-accused to apply separately for compounding offences. Petition disposed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
