Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6961 to 6980 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Invocation of s.28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequent mandatory penalty under s.114A, despite post-clearance payment of duty with interest, was held unsustainable because the extended provision requires specific proof of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Mere payment a few days after "out of charge," particularly when system changes were pending for capturing the new duty in ICES and no advantage accrued to the importer due to interest liability, did not establish the requisite intent or conduct. Accordingly, confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed. - CESTAT
Invocation of s.28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequent mandatory penalty under s.114A, despite post-clearance payment of duty with interest, was held unsustainable because the extended provision requires specific proof of collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression. Mere payment a few days after "out of charge," particularly when system changes were pending for capturing the new duty in ICES and no advantage accrued to the importer due to interest liability, did not establish the requisite intent or conduct. Accordingly, confiscation and penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.