Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Diversion of EPCG-imported capital goods to vendors' premises and non-endorsement of supporting manufacturers was held not to breach substantive EPCG conditions where there was no allegation of sale, transfer, or other impermissible disposal and the export obligation was stated to be fulfilled; DGFT's post facto approval for inclusion of supporting manufacturers bound Customs, and the remaining notification conditions were treated as compliance safeguards, so duty demand was unsustainable. Alleged misdeclaration under s.114AA failed as the notice did not establish any intentional false statement or document, so penalty was not imposable. Extended limitation was rejected because clearance under bond kept the obligation live, enabling issuance of notice upon non-production of discharge certificate, but the Revenue's appeal still failed on merits and was dismissed. - CESTAT
Diversion of EPCG-imported capital goods to vendors' premises and non-endorsement of supporting manufacturers was held not to breach substantive EPCG conditions where there was no allegation of sale, transfer, or other impermissible disposal and the export obligation was stated to be fulfilled; DGFT's post facto approval for inclusion of supporting manufacturers bound Customs, and the remaining notification conditions were treated as compliance safeguards, so duty demand was unsustainable. Alleged misdeclaration under s.114AA failed as the notice did not establish any intentional false statement or document, so penalty was not imposable. Extended limitation was rejected because clearance under bond kept the obligation live, enabling issuance of notice upon non-production of discharge certificate, but the Revenue's appeal still failed on merits and was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
