Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
