Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Extended period of limitation for duty recovery requires...
Extended limitation requires willful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade; mere misclassification does not sustain confiscation or penalty.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Extended period of limitation for duty recovery requires non-payment or short-payment to result from collusion or willful misstatement or active suppression by the importer with intent to evade; mere mis classification or omission during self assessment does not suffice. Applying that principle, the action invoking extended limitation was unsupported and so was the penalty founded on the same elements. Misclassification in the bill of entry does not justify confiscation of the goods or a redemption fine where the discrepancy concerns tariff classification rather than the nature of the goods. The demand for duty with interest was sustained only within the normal limitation period.
Extended period of limitation for duty recovery requires non-payment or short-payment to result from collusion or willful misstatement or active suppression by the importer with intent to evade; mere mis classification or omission during self assessment does not suffice. Applying that principle, the action invoking extended limitation was unsupported and so was the penalty founded on the same elements. Misclassification in the bill of entry does not justify confiscation of the goods or a redemption fine where the discrepancy concerns tariff classification rather than the nature of the goods. The demand for duty with interest was sustained only within the normal limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.