Deductibility for charitable donations affirmed where payments to approved relief funds, even if CSR-driven, qualify under the donation deduction sche...
Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5321 to 5340 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Appellate recourse remained available where a superior officer had assumed functions ordinarily exercised by the proper officer, because such assumption did not extinguish the normal appeal mechanism. The Tribunal further held that the imported goods were not shown to fall within the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2020 entries requiring BIS certification, so confiscation under section 111(d) for breach of import prohibition could not stand. Misdescription was also not established, as the goods remained classifiable under the same tariff item and the record did not prove intent to evade duty. The declared transaction value could not be rejected without a lawful rule 12 basis and sequential valuation under the valuation rules, so enhancement was unsustainable.
Appellate recourse remained available where a superior officer had assumed functions ordinarily exercised by the proper officer, because such assumption did not extinguish the normal appeal mechanism. The Tribunal further held that the imported goods were not shown to fall within the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2020 entries requiring BIS certification, so confiscation under section 111(d) for breach of import prohibition could not stand. Misdescription was also not established, as the goods remained classifiable under the same tariff item and the record did not prove intent to evade duty. The declared transaction value could not be rejected without a lawful rule 12 basis and sequential valuation under the valuation rules, so enhancement was unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.