Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act was held inapplicable to the differential duty demand because the imports were cleared in 2007-08 without valuation objection, and the investigation commenced nearly three years later without evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty. A statement recorded under section 108 admitting undervaluation and willingness to pay differential duty was treated as insufficient and not determinative, and mere undervaluation, absent material showing intent to evade, cannot justify the extended period. Consequently, the demand and valuation redetermination order were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Extended limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act was held inapplicable to the differential duty demand because the imports were cleared in 2007-08 without valuation objection, and the investigation commenced nearly three years later without evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade duty. A statement recorded under section 108 admitting undervaluation and willingness to pay differential duty was treated as insufficient and not determinative, and mere undervaluation, absent material showing intent to evade, cannot justify the extended period. Consequently, the demand and valuation redetermination order were set aside and the appeal was allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
