Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Reasonable belief of smuggling must rest on objective material, not mere suspicion, and a town seizure of gold by itself carries less inferential weight than seizure at a customs station or notified area. On the facts, there were no foreign markings, no evidence of the smuggling route or melting place, no corroboration from follow-up searches, and the alleged licit purchase was not disproved at the seller's end; the goods were therefore not shown to be smuggled or liable to confiscation. A retracted statement could not sustain confiscation and penalties where the procedure under Section 138B was not followed and the statement was not otherwise proved. The appellate order was affirmed and the departmental appeals were dismissed.
Reasonable belief of smuggling must rest on objective material, not mere suspicion, and a town seizure of gold by itself carries less inferential weight than seizure at a customs station or notified area. On the facts, there were no foreign markings, no evidence of the smuggling route or melting place, no corroboration from follow-up searches, and the alleged licit purchase was not disproved at the seller's end; the goods were therefore not shown to be smuggled or liable to confiscation. A retracted statement could not sustain confiscation and penalties where the procedure under Section 138B was not followed and the statement was not otherwise proved. The appellate order was affirmed and the departmental appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
