Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 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 held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
The AT held that the impugned retention order concerning seized articles, including gold, violated natural justice by failing to issue the mandatory minimum 30-day notice under s.8(1) of the Act to require the appellant to disclose the source of income/assets; the Tribunal rejected the respondent's contention that a shareholder/director could be treated as representing the appellant without documentary authorization. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand: the matter is returned to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to serve the requisite s.8(1) notice on the appellant company and to adjudicate afresh in accordance with law and due process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
