Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6221 to 6240 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
DRI officers were held competent to issue SCNs in drawback fraud cases, applying the Tribunal's later precedent upholding DRI jurisdiction; consequently, the challenge to SCN validity failed. Deliberate post-LEO alteration of Bills of Lading to change the port of discharge was treated as fraudulent conduct affecting Customs risk assessment and therefore constituted misdeclaration in the Shipping Bills; accordingly, the export declarations were held tainted. A company was held to fall within "person" by applying the General Clauses Act where the Customs Act is silent; accordingly, corporate liability under s.114 was maintainable in law. However, absent proof of knowing abetment by the customs broker, penalty under s.114(i) was set aside, leaving any lapse to CHALR action. - CESTAT
DRI officers were held competent to issue SCNs in drawback fraud cases, applying the Tribunal's later precedent upholding DRI jurisdiction; consequently, the challenge to SCN validity failed. Deliberate post-LEO alteration of Bills of Lading to change the port of discharge was treated as fraudulent conduct affecting Customs risk assessment and therefore constituted misdeclaration in the Shipping Bills; accordingly, the export declarations were held tainted. A company was held to fall within "person" by applying the General Clauses Act where the Customs Act is silent; accordingly, corporate liability under s.114 was maintainable in law. However, absent proof of knowing abetment by the customs broker, penalty under s.114(i) was set aside, leaving any lapse to CHALR action. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.