Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse.
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
