Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
