Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Central issue: whether administrative findings of breaches of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (10(d), 10(e), 10(m), 10(f), 13(12)) and consequent penalty/forfeiture could stand where they rested on recorded statements. Reasoning: recorded statements under section 108 were neither admitted as evidence nor were declarants summoned/examined, and therefore are irrelevant under section 138D and inadmissible under section 138B; the statements were also not relied upon in the show-cause notice. Outcome: findings of regulatory violation and attendant penalty/forfeiture are unsustainable and the impugned order is set aside. - CESTAT
Central issue: whether administrative findings of breaches of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (10(d), 10(e), 10(m), 10(f), 13(12)) and consequent penalty/forfeiture could stand where they rested on recorded statements. Reasoning: recorded statements under section 108 were neither admitted as evidence nor were declarants summoned/examined, and therefore are irrelevant under section 138D and inadmissible under section 138B; the statements were also not relied upon in the show-cause notice. Outcome: findings of regulatory violation and attendant penalty/forfeiture are unsustainable and the impugned order is set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
