Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the subsequent purchaser cannot be considered the actual importer liable for customs duty. Mr. Arshad Vayal Peedika, who filed the Bill of Entry under transfer of residence, is the actual importer. The differential duty demand against the subsequent purchaser was set aside. Confiscation of the vehicle and penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA were quashed, as the appellant did not participate in import clearance or make false declarations. The tribunal emphasized that liability for customs duty rests with the original importer who clears goods, not subsequent bona fide purchasers. Appeal disposed of in favor of the appellant.
CESTAT held that the subsequent purchaser cannot be considered the actual importer liable for customs duty. Mr. Arshad Vayal Peedika, who filed the Bill of Entry under transfer of residence, is the actual importer. The differential duty demand against the subsequent purchaser was set aside. Confiscation of the vehicle and penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA were quashed, as the appellant did not participate in import clearance or make false declarations. The tribunal emphasized that liability for customs duty rests with the original importer who clears goods, not subsequent bona fide purchasers. Appeal disposed of in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
