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...
Section 112(a) and 112(b) were held to cover both abetment or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation and possession or dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, so the show-cause notice was valid where it specified the petitioner's role in smuggling gold paste without declaration. The Court rejected the objection based on non-specification of the precise clause, holding that the notice gave adequate particulars and was answered on merits. Smuggled gold imported in breach of customs restrictions was treated as prohibited goods, so penalty under Section 112(i) was also sustained. The writ petition was dismissed and the penalty order upheld.
Section 112(a) and 112(b) were held to cover both abetment or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation and possession or dealing with goods known or believed to be liable to confiscation, so the show-cause notice was valid where it specified the petitioner's role in smuggling gold paste without declaration. The Court rejected the objection based on non-specification of the precise clause, holding that the notice gave adequate particulars and was answered on merits. Smuggled gold imported in breach of customs restrictions was treated as prohibited goods, so penalty under Section 112(i) was also sustained. The writ petition was dismissed and the penalty order upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
