PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 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 imported "ethylene ripener" containing ethephon is an "insecticide" under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
CESTAT held that the imported "ethylene ripener" containing ethephon is an "insecticide" under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
