Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
For assessment and recovery purposes, the importer is the person who files the Bill of Entry, subscribes to the statutory declaration and seeks clearance; because those acts were done by the filing firms and not the appellants, the duty demand under Section 28 and denial of Notification No. 80/95-Cus failed against them. Misdeclaration under Section 111(m) required responsibility for or knowing participation in the false declaration, and no such evidence existed against the appellants, so confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. However, their furnishing of advance licences, end-use bonds and bank guarantees amounted to deliberate facilitation of improper clearance, sustaining penalty under Section 112(a).
For assessment and recovery purposes, the importer is the person who files the Bill of Entry, subscribes to the statutory declaration and seeks clearance; because those acts were done by the filing firms and not the appellants, the duty demand under Section 28 and denial of Notification No. 80/95-Cus failed against them. Misdeclaration under Section 111(m) required responsibility for or knowing participation in the false declaration, and no such evidence existed against the appellants, so confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. However, their furnishing of advance licences, end-use bonds and bank guarantees amounted to deliberate facilitation of improper clearance, sustaining penalty under Section 112(a).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.