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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part: it upheld the original rejection of the declared transaction value, the re-determination of assessable value and duty, and the order of confiscation under s.111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act, while reducing the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under s.125 to Rs.26,50,000 and setting aside the penalty imposed under s.114A. The Tribunal found the appellant's claim of bona fide import under the EPCG scheme not implausible and noted absence of findings of invoice manipulation or wilful suppression; it further held that once duty as assessed was paid without a s.28(8) demand, imposition of s.114A penalty was untenable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal in part: it upheld the original rejection of the declared transaction value, the re-determination of assessable value and duty, and the order of confiscation under s.111(d) & (m) of the Customs Act, while reducing the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under s.125 to Rs.26,50,000 and setting aside the penalty imposed under s.114A. The Tribunal found the appellant's claim of bona fide import under the EPCG scheme not implausible and noted absence of findings of invoice manipulation or wilful suppression; it further held that once duty as assessed was paid without a s.28(8) demand, imposition of s.114A penalty was untenable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
