Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.
Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central Government to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate imports by Gazette order, and section 5 permits amendment of foreign trade policy. On that basis, a notification fixing a Minimum Import Price for roasted areca nut was within statutory competence. The notification was also treated as consistent with the ASEAN and WTO framework because it operated as a non-tariff safeguard for agricultural products, fixed only a trigger price, and did not impose a quantitative import cap. Importers could not avoid the MIP condition by relying on nil-duty eligibility under Notification No. 46/2011.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.