Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
Provisional attachment under a PAO was upheld on the basis that available investigative material, including recovered bribe money and an unquashed FIR, established a prima facie case of money laundering; the appellant's contention that no crime was committed was rejected. The Tribunal directed that attachment must be limited to quantifiable proceeds of crime rather than the entire contract value, recognising legitimate manufacturing costs and expenses. The respondent was ordered to quantify the recoverable proceeds (focusing on the profit/illicit portion) and reassess the provisional attachment within the specified four week period.
Provisional attachment under a PAO was upheld on the basis that available investigative material, including recovered bribe money and an unquashed FIR, established a prima facie case of money laundering; the appellant's contention that no crime was committed was rejected. The Tribunal directed that attachment must be limited to quantifiable proceeds of crime rather than the entire contract value, recognising legitimate manufacturing costs and expenses. The respondent was ordered to quantify the recoverable proceeds (focusing on the profit/illicit portion) and reassess the provisional attachment within the specified four week period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
