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" ?
Penalty on a customs broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for alleged abetment of smuggling was held unsustainable because reliance on the broker's statement and other statements was impermissible without establishing admissibility under Section 138B, and the requested cross-examination was not granted. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no evidence of any intentional act amounting to abetment. Any failure to verify importer antecedents under CBLR, at most, indicated negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling. The appellate authority's reliance on ingredients of Section 112(b) without such allegation in the show cause notice was also impermissible, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Penalty on a customs broker under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for alleged abetment of smuggling was held unsustainable because reliance on the broker's statement and other statements was impermissible without establishing admissibility under Section 138B, and the requested cross-examination was not granted. Even assuming admissibility, the statements did not prove knowledge or complicity in concealment of smuggled cigarettes, and the Department led no evidence of any intentional act amounting to abetment. Any failure to verify importer antecedents under CBLR, at most, indicated negligence and could not establish involvement in smuggling. The appellate authority's reliance on ingredients of Section 112(b) without such allegation in the show cause notice was also impermissible, so the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
