Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Breach of an import undertaking under Condition No.104 (Serial No.347B) for a helicopter -- demonstrated by predominant private, unpaid use -- supports confiscation and recovery by recourse to the undertaking despite references to section 28. The tribunal upheld confiscation because the exemption condition was substantially violated. Penalties under section 112 were quashed for two officers because the impugned order did not establish their knowledge or mens rea that unpaid private use would violate the exemption; absence of culpable knowledge defeated individual penalty liability and the department's appeal against penalty enhancement was dismissed.
Breach of an import undertaking under Condition No.104 (Serial No.347B) for a helicopter -- demonstrated by predominant private, unpaid use -- supports confiscation and recovery by recourse to the undertaking despite references to section 28. The tribunal upheld confiscation because the exemption condition was substantially violated. Penalties under section 112 were quashed for two officers because the impugned order did not establish their knowledge or mens rea that unpaid private use would violate the exemption; absence of culpable knowledge defeated individual penalty liability and the department's appeal against penalty enhancement was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
