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...
CESTAT affirmed that the imported consignments were classifiable as ascorbic acid (CTH 2936.27) attracting anti-dumping duty and that live consignments mis-declared as ascorbyl polyphosphate were correctly found liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. For past consignments, the Tribunal held that mis-declaration was not conclusively established in absence of testing or supplier/buyer corroboration, so exemption entitlement and duty liability could not be presumed solely from COO certificates or appearance. Personal penalties against the company's officers were quashed for lack of proof of their directing role; the penalty under section 114A against the company was set aside for failure to establish willful misstatement. Parties are entitled to consequential relief after adjustment of dues.
CESTAT affirmed that the imported consignments were classifiable as ascorbic acid (CTH 2936.27) attracting anti-dumping duty and that live consignments mis-declared as ascorbyl polyphosphate were correctly found liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. For past consignments, the Tribunal held that mis-declaration was not conclusively established in absence of testing or supplier/buyer corroboration, so exemption entitlement and duty liability could not be presumed solely from COO certificates or appearance. Personal penalties against the company's officers were quashed for lack of proof of their directing role; the penalty under section 114A against the company was set aside for failure to establish willful misstatement. Parties are entitled to consequential relief after adjustment of dues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
