Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
The HC determined that issuing two show cause notices (SCNs) under different subsections of Section 28 for identical factual matrices is impermissible. The impugned SCN under Section 28(4) was issued just six weeks after a Section 28(1) notice concerning similar goods with similar alleged "mis-declaration," constituting an improper change of opinion. The court found the second notice failed to substantiate allegations of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts required under Section 28(4), containing merely an "incantation" of statutory provisions without supporting substance. Furthermore, the respondent's contention that the impugned notice was a "supplementary notice" was rejected, as the Customs Act contemplates issuance under either Section 28(1) or 28(4), not both. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
