Transfer-pricing reimbursement adjustments require uncontrolled comparables and cannot become expense-genuineness reviews, resulting in deletion of th...
Food import sampling requirements support provisional release where unseized consignments conform to standards and raw areca classification is unestab...
Diagnostic microcuvette classification follows sole-use analytical function, placing specialised disposable cuvettes with their analyser rather than g...
Customs Broker licensing proceedings fail when their offence-report foundation collapses and authorisation, advisory, and KYC duties remain unbreached...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Alleged fraudulent diversion of export consignments to a non-notified destination to wrongfully claim Focus Market Scheme benefits could not be established because statements recorded under s.108 Customs Act were inadmissible without compliance with s.138B, including examination as witnesses and opportunity of cross-examination; consequently, those statements could not prove diversion and related manipulation. Confiscation under s.113(d),(g),(i) was held inapplicable since the goods had already been exported pursuant to Let Export Orders prior to initiation of investigation, and s.113 addresses attempts to export improperly; confiscation was therefore set aside. Penalties under s.114(iii) failed as no improper export attempt and no confiscation sustained, and s.114AA penalties also failed due to lack of admissible evidence; appeal allowed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
