Deferred Payment of Customs Duty extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers with electronic registration and ICEGATE authentication for conditional c...
Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
