Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1181 to 1200 of 96509 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Customs law did not extend to fasten liability on a foreign exporter for pre-amendment transactions where the exporter was outside India and the relevant amendment to Section 1 operated only prospectively from 29 March 2018. The Act placed post-import compliance and responsibility on the Indian importer, and no legal basis was shown to make the foreign exporter answer for the importers' alleged misdeclaration. Penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA also failed because there was no evidence of any act, omission, abetment, false declaration, or other conduct by the petitioners that satisfied the statutory requirements. On that basis, the show-cause notices were quashed as without jurisdiction.
Customs law did not extend to fasten liability on a foreign exporter for pre-amendment transactions where the exporter was outside India and the relevant amendment to Section 1 operated only prospectively from 29 March 2018. The Act placed post-import compliance and responsibility on the Indian importer, and no legal basis was shown to make the foreign exporter answer for the importers' alleged misdeclaration. Penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA also failed because there was no evidence of any act, omission, abetment, false declaration, or other conduct by the petitioners that satisfied the statutory requirements. On that basis, the show-cause notices were quashed as without jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
