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...
Penalty under section 112(b) was unsustainable because the essential element of knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation was not proved. The appellant had purchased the branded watches locally from the importer, was not involved in the import declaration process, and stated that the price revision followed the importer's price list. In the absence of documentary evidence showing awareness of the retail sale price declared at import or the duty position, the Tribunal held that mens rea could not be presumed. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Penalty under section 112(b) was unsustainable because the essential element of knowledge that the goods were liable to confiscation was not proved. The appellant had purchased the branded watches locally from the importer, was not involved in the import declaration process, and stated that the price revision followed the importer's price list. In the absence of documentary evidence showing awareness of the retail sale price declared at import or the duty position, the Tribunal held that mens rea could not be presumed. The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.