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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute regarding seized traveller's cheques, finding the customs department's encashment and retention of funds arbitrary. The tribunal determined that the cheques, being non-perishable dollar-denominated instruments, should have been handled with greater procedural care. Critically, the court ruled that the appellant was entitled to interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit, less redemption fines and penalties, with payment mandated within two months. The decision emphasized preventing unjust enrichment and protecting property rights by recognizing the potential financial loss to the appellant due to unauthorized fund retention. Appeal was allowed, directing monetary compensation to the appellant.
CESTAT adjudicated a dispute regarding seized traveller's cheques, finding the customs department's encashment and retention of funds arbitrary. The tribunal determined that the cheques, being non-perishable dollar-denominated instruments, should have been handled with greater procedural care. Critically, the court ruled that the appellant was entitled to interest on the deposited amount from the date of deposit, less redemption fines and penalties, with payment mandated within two months. The decision emphasized preventing unjust enrichment and protecting property rights by recognizing the potential financial loss to the appellant due to unauthorized fund retention. Appeal was allowed, directing monetary compensation to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
