Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5741 to 5760 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Misdeclaration of imported goods in quantity, description and valuation justified rejection of the declared transaction value, as the importer's unretracted Section 108 statement admitted the errors and accepted reassessment. The Tribunal held that admitted facts required no further proof and that, where identical goods data was unavailable, value could be redetermined under Rule 5 using contemporary import data of similar goods. In a self-assessment regime, the importer remained responsible for correct declaration and could not avoid liability by blaming the supplier. On that basis, confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m), redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Misdeclaration of imported goods in quantity, description and valuation justified rejection of the declared transaction value, as the importer's unretracted Section 108 statement admitted the errors and accepted reassessment. The Tribunal held that admitted facts required no further proof and that, where identical goods data was unavailable, value could be redetermined under Rule 5 using contemporary import data of similar goods. In a self-assessment regime, the importer remained responsible for correct declaration and could not avoid liability by blaming the supplier. On that basis, confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m), redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.