Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
ITAT held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
ITAT held that the term "may" in Section 43 of the BM Act is directory and not to be construed as "shall," therefore imposition of penalty for non-disclosure of foreign assets in Schedule FA is not automatic; the Assessing Officer retains discretion to impose or waive penalty based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunal found the appellants failed to demonstrate a bona fide omission and noted material inaccuracies and non-reporting, but clarified that a prior decision did not bind the Division Bench on whether penalty is mandatory nor considered Section 46's requirement of hearing. The matters are remitted to the Division Bench to determine the penalty merits in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.