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...
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
The dominant issue was whether revised compounding Guidelines dated 17.10.2024 could be applied to compute compounding fee for an offence under s.279(2) on a compounding application filed on 05.03.2021 pursuant to prior judicial directions. The Explanation to s.279(6), though retrospective from 01.04.1962, only clarifies the Board's power to issue binding instructions and operates as a proviso making the Commissioner's power subject to then-applicable Board instructions; it does not authorise applying later guidelines to an already-pending compounding request, unless a fresh independent application is made under the new guidelines. Consequently, determination of compounding charges under the 17.10.2024 Guidelines was held unsustainable. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.