Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's challenge, upholding adjudication that goods were mis-declared affecting classification, valuation and anti-dumping duty liability; the Tribunal found the importer's first-check and wrongful-shipment defences unsubstantiated and held the goods liable to confiscation under ss.111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The CESTAT affirmed that confiscation is antecedent to any redemption; permission to re-export does not preclude imposition of a redemption fine under s.125 or the levy of penalties, and therefore the adjudicating authority lawfully imposed confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. Appeal dismissed; impugned orders sustained.
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's challenge, upholding adjudication that goods were mis-declared affecting classification, valuation and anti-dumping duty liability; the Tribunal found the importer's first-check and wrongful-shipment defences unsubstantiated and held the goods liable to confiscation under ss.111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The CESTAT affirmed that confiscation is antecedent to any redemption; permission to re-export does not preclude imposition of a redemption fine under s.125 or the levy of penalties, and therefore the adjudicating authority lawfully imposed confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. Appeal dismissed; impugned orders sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
