Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Penal liability under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA requires direct and concrete proof of knowing involvement in the fraudulent export activity; suspicion, assumption, or merely suggestive material is insufficient. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant, who was not the Customs Broker for the exports, to the consignments or to any inflated valuation, and held that provision of contact details or documents to another person did not by itself establish a premeditated role in wrongful IGST refund facilitation. The penalties were set aside.
Penal liability under Sections 114(iii) and 114AA requires direct and concrete proof of knowing involvement in the fraudulent export activity; suspicion, assumption, or merely suggestive material is insufficient. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant, who was not the Customs Broker for the exports, to the consignments or to any inflated valuation, and held that provision of contact details or documents to another person did not by itself establish a premeditated role in wrongful IGST refund facilitation. The penalties were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
