Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cross-objections were held maintainable under Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act despite withdrawal of the departmental appeal, because they operate as an independent proceeding once filed. On merits, the imported vehicle was declared used but found brand new, and non-compliance with import policy and motor vehicle requirements justified confiscation under Section 111(d). However, the goods were treated as regulatory-breach goods rather than absolutely prohibited goods, so absolute confiscation was found excessive. The Tribunal therefore allowed redemption on payment of fine, applicable duty and interest, while leaving the reduced penalty undisturbed.
Cross-objections were held maintainable under Section 129A(4) of the Customs Act despite withdrawal of the departmental appeal, because they operate as an independent proceeding once filed. On merits, the imported vehicle was declared used but found brand new, and non-compliance with import policy and motor vehicle requirements justified confiscation under Section 111(d). However, the goods were treated as regulatory-breach goods rather than absolutely prohibited goods, so absolute confiscation was found excessive. The Tribunal therefore allowed redemption on payment of fine, applicable duty and interest, while leaving the reduced penalty undisturbed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
