Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the seizure of 20 gold biscuits from Appellant A lacked the "reasonable belief" required under s.110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Dept. failed to establish foreign origin or smuggled character of the goods. Mere foreign markings, doubtful purity, city "town seizure" far from any border, and incomplete testing were found insufficient to prove illicit import. Consequently, s.123 was held inapplicable, and the burden of proof did not shift to Appellant A; the Dept. remained obliged to prove smuggling, which it failed to do. Confiscation under s.111(b) and (d) and penalties under s.112(b)(ii) were set aside. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal of Appellant A was allowed, with consequential relief.
CESTAT held that the seizure of 20 gold biscuits from Appellant A lacked the "reasonable belief" required under s.110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the Dept. failed to establish foreign origin or smuggled character of the goods. Mere foreign markings, doubtful purity, city "town seizure" far from any border, and incomplete testing were found insufficient to prove illicit import. Consequently, s.123 was held inapplicable, and the burden of proof did not shift to Appellant A; the Dept. remained obliged to prove smuggling, which it failed to do. Confiscation under s.111(b) and (d) and penalties under s.112(b)(ii) were set aside. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal of Appellant A was allowed, with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
