Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 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 customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
CESTAT held that the customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
