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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Statements recorded under Section 108 were admissible, but undervaluation of export goods could not be proved without reliable independent corroboration. The Department relied on statements, e-mails and a purported overseas contract, yet the exporters were not party to that contract, were denied cross-examination of key persons, and received payment at the declared FOB value through banking channels. Electronic printouts and e-mails were also rejected for non-compliance with Section 138C and for lack of proof of source and authenticity. The Tribunal therefore held that receipt of any additional consideration was not established and set aside the differential duty demand and penalties.
Statements recorded under Section 108 were admissible, but undervaluation of export goods could not be proved without reliable independent corroboration. The Department relied on statements, e-mails and a purported overseas contract, yet the exporters were not party to that contract, were denied cross-examination of key persons, and received payment at the declared FOB value through banking channels. Electronic printouts and e-mails were also rejected for non-compliance with Section 138C and for lack of proof of source and authenticity. The Tribunal therefore held that receipt of any additional consideration was not established and set aside the differential duty demand and penalties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.