Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
A custodian under customs law is liable for pilferage only if imported goods are shown to have been lost or substituted while in its custody. Where sealed containers move on a said-to-contain basis and the examination reports show intact seals, or no tampering, a mere mismatch between the import manifest and the goods found does not prove pilferage or substitution during custody. On the facts, the tribunal found no evidence that the containers were tampered with while with the custodian, so the duty demand raised on custodian liability and the related penalties were unsustainable and were set aside.
A custodian under customs law is liable for pilferage only if imported goods are shown to have been lost or substituted while in its custody. Where sealed containers move on a said-to-contain basis and the examination reports show intact seals, or no tampering, a mere mismatch between the import manifest and the goods found does not prove pilferage or substitution during custody. On the facts, the tribunal found no evidence that the containers were tampered with while with the custodian, so the duty demand raised on custodian liability and the related penalties were unsustainable and were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.