Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Misdeclaration of an imported vehicle in description, origin, value and seating capacity attracted confiscation, redemption fine, duty and penalty under a scheme operating in distinct fields. The Court held that re-export after payment of redemption fine did not extinguish the importer's separate liability to duty, appropriation and other consequences flowing from improper import; Section 125(2) preserves liability to duty and charges in addition to redemption fine. It also upheld penalty for knowingly using false or incorrect documents, finding that Section 114AA covers making, signing or using materially false declarations and does not require a separate allegation that the importer personally caused falsification. The Tribunal's contrary view was set aside.
Misdeclaration of an imported vehicle in description, origin, value and seating capacity attracted confiscation, redemption fine, duty and penalty under a scheme operating in distinct fields. The Court held that re-export after payment of redemption fine did not extinguish the importer's separate liability to duty, appropriation and other consequences flowing from improper import; Section 125(2) preserves liability to duty and charges in addition to redemption fine. It also upheld penalty for knowingly using false or incorrect documents, finding that Section 114AA covers making, signing or using materially false declarations and does not require a separate allegation that the importer personally caused falsification. The Tribunal's contrary view was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.