Imported seaweed extract provisionally released on bond only; declaratory rejection set aside; appellate decision due within section 128-A(4-A) three ...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9441 to 9460 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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the appellants remained liable for and their deposited amounts were properly appropriated towards customs duty on imported gold under the nominated-agency exemption scheme, resulting in cancellation of the bonds and discharge of duty liability. However, the Tribunal set aside imposition of penalty under s.112(a) of the Act and the orders of confiscation and redemption fine, finding no collusion or responsibility of the appellants for fraudulent diversion by the exporter. Consequently, extended limitation was not invoked against the appellants and no further action survives against them in respect of the appropriated duty.
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the appellants remained liable for and their deposited amounts were properly appropriated towards customs duty on imported gold under the nominated-agency exemption scheme, resulting in cancellation of the bonds and discharge of duty liability. However, the Tribunal set aside imposition of penalty under s.112(a) of the Act and the orders of confiscation and redemption fine, finding no collusion or responsibility of the appellants for fraudulent diversion by the exporter. Consequently, extended limitation was not invoked against the appellants and no further action survives against them in respect of the appropriated duty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.