Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Foreign customs declarations and importer admissions established undervaluation, supporting sequential value redetermination, differential duty, and m...
Customs seizure safeguards prevent detention-based limitation avoidance and invalidate provisional release conditions for imported vehicles under an i...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The defendants contended that the suit, insofar as it invoked the right to be forgotten, was barred by limitation; the Court held that the plaint sought distinct reliefs for privacy, dignity and erasure of stigmatizing content apart from damages for defamation, and the suit was filed soon after the plaintiff's exoneration, hence it could not be rejected at the threshold under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation objection failed. On the challenge to the interim injunction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the Court found the trial court's order narrowly tailored, not a blanket restraint on speech, and proportionately balancing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 given irreversible reputational harm from perpetual online availability; the appeal was dismissed. - HC
The defendants contended that the suit, insofar as it invoked the right to be forgotten, was barred by limitation; the Court held that the plaint sought distinct reliefs for privacy, dignity and erasure of stigmatizing content apart from damages for defamation, and the suit was filed soon after the plaintiff's exoneration, hence it could not be rejected at the threshold under Article 75 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation objection failed. On the challenge to the interim injunction under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, the Court found the trial court's order narrowly tailored, not a blanket restraint on speech, and proportionately balancing Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 given irreversible reputational harm from perpetual online availability; the appeal was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
