Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
