Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA was upheld where the certificates of origin, later verified by Bangladesh authorities, were confirmed as correct and could not be disregarded on a unilateral assumption about the origin of the goods. The Tribunal also rejected selective retesting and extrapolation of a few later laboratory results to all consignments, finding the method legally untenable and inconsistent with the original reports. It further held that the extended period of limitation was unavailable because the import documents had been disclosed at clearance and no suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion was proved. The objection that recovery proceedings were invalid for want of a departmental appeal against self-assessed bills of entry was also rejected.
Preferential duty exemption under SAFTA was upheld where the certificates of origin, later verified by Bangladesh authorities, were confirmed as correct and could not be disregarded on a unilateral assumption about the origin of the goods. The Tribunal also rejected selective retesting and extrapolation of a few later laboratory results to all consignments, finding the method legally untenable and inconsistent with the original reports. It further held that the extended period of limitation was unavailable because the import documents had been disclosed at clearance and no suppression, wilful misstatement or collusion was proved. The objection that recovery proceedings were invalid for want of a departmental appeal against self-assessed bills of entry was also rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
