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" ?
HC held that penalty under Section 50 of the FERA is not sustainable against the appellants. Reading Section 18(1)(a) with Sections 18(2) and 18(3) and the attendant notification, the Court found that non-realisation of a small percentage (~5.45%) of export proceeds did not warrant automatic penal liability where prescribed procedural requisites and reasonable steps are considered. The appellants were entitled to write-off of unrealised export bills in line with post-liberalisation RBI practice; the AD had sought write-off and the RBI failed to implement the applicable circular. The appellants had also reversed proportionate duty drawback, negating misuse of export incentives, supporting relief from penalty.
HC held that penalty under Section 50 of the FERA is not sustainable against the appellants. Reading Section 18(1)(a) with Sections 18(2) and 18(3) and the attendant notification, the Court found that non-realisation of a small percentage (~5.45%) of export proceeds did not warrant automatic penal liability where prescribed procedural requisites and reasonable steps are considered. The appellants were entitled to write-off of unrealised export bills in line with post-liberalisation RBI practice; the AD had sought write-off and the RBI failed to implement the applicable circular. The appellants had also reversed proportionate duty drawback, negating misuse of export incentives, supporting relief from penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.