Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
