Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Foreign customs declarations and importer admissions established undervaluation, supporting sequential value redetermination, differential duty, and m...
Customs seizure safeguards prevent detention-based limitation avoidance and invalidate provisional release conditions for imported vehicles under an i...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 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" ?
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, confirming that attachment is permissible against any person in possession of proceeds of crime, not solely the accused. The appellant, though not named in the FIR or prosecution complaint, controlled companies receiving laundered proceeds linked to the predicate offence. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's challenge, emphasizing that the Act's provisions extend to third-party possession to prevent frustration of its objectives. Confiscation was deemed premature as the trial is incomplete. The attachment of property amounting to Rs. 11.35 crores, corresponding to laundered proceeds held by the appellant's controlled entities, was affirmed. No illegality was found in the attachment order, and the appeal was dismissed.
The AT upheld the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, confirming that attachment is permissible against any person in possession of proceeds of crime, not solely the accused. The appellant, though not named in the FIR or prosecution complaint, controlled companies receiving laundered proceeds linked to the predicate offence. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's challenge, emphasizing that the Act's provisions extend to third-party possession to prevent frustration of its objectives. Confiscation was deemed premature as the trial is incomplete. The attachment of property amounting to Rs. 11.35 crores, corresponding to laundered proceeds held by the appellant's controlled entities, was affirmed. No illegality was found in the attachment order, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.