Mandatory verification procedure governs rejection of country-of-origin certificates before denying preferential customs exemption and related penalti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1961 to 1980 of 96333 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.