Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
421 to 440 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Duty paid under protest in a customs classification dispute became refundable once the classification was finally decided in the importer's favour, and the refund followed as a natural consequence of the adjudication. The Tribunal held that money collected and retained contrary to law could not be kept without compensating the importer by way of interest, especially where the Revenue had enjoyed the benefit of the deposit from the date of import. It rejected the Revenue's reliance on authorities dealing with different factual settings and upheld the appellate order granting interest on the refunded amount, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Duty paid under protest in a customs classification dispute became refundable once the classification was finally decided in the importer's favour, and the refund followed as a natural consequence of the adjudication. The Tribunal held that money collected and retained contrary to law could not be kept without compensating the importer by way of interest, especially where the Revenue had enjoyed the benefit of the deposit from the date of import. It rejected the Revenue's reliance on authorities dealing with different factual settings and upheld the appellate order granting interest on the refunded amount, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.