Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
