Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
The HC held that appellate interference with a discretionary order condoning delay is limited, and will not be warranted unless the Tribunal's exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or based on untenable grounds. Here, the Tribunal had considered the explanation for the 763-day delay, the connected nature of the pending appeals between the same parties, and the need to decide the matter on merits in the interest of substantial justice. As no infirmity in that reasoning was established, the order condoning delay was upheld and the challenge failed.
The HC held that appellate interference with a discretionary order condoning delay is limited, and will not be warranted unless the Tribunal's exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or based on untenable grounds. Here, the Tribunal had considered the explanation for the 763-day delay, the connected nature of the pending appeals between the same parties, and the need to decide the matter on merits in the interest of substantial justice. As no infirmity in that reasoning was established, the order condoning delay was upheld and the challenge failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
