Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Non-injurious price in anti-dumping proceedings had to be disclosed with sufficient factual detail before final findings, because the calculation directly affected normal value, injury margin and the recommendation of nil duty. The Tribunal found that the disclosure statement did not explain the methodology or basis of the working, so the exporter could not effectively respond; disclosure after final findings caused prejudice and the nil-duty recommendation was set aside and remitted for fresh determination with reasonable opportunity. On product scope, semi-finished ophthalmic lenses with refractive index above 1.6 were upheld as excluded from the product under consideration because the domestic industry did not actually produce that category and the items were not technically or commercially substitutable.
Non-injurious price in anti-dumping proceedings had to be disclosed with sufficient factual detail before final findings, because the calculation directly affected normal value, injury margin and the recommendation of nil duty. The Tribunal found that the disclosure statement did not explain the methodology or basis of the working, so the exporter could not effectively respond; disclosure after final findings caused prejudice and the nil-duty recommendation was set aside and remitted for fresh determination with reasonable opportunity. On product scope, semi-finished ophthalmic lenses with refractive index above 1.6 were upheld as excluded from the product under consideration because the domestic industry did not actually produce that category and the items were not technically or commercially substitutable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
