Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.