Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Export proceeds unrealised by a company were treated as Rs. 1.8 crore after allowing adjustments for returned goods and advance remittance, but the Tribunal held that repeated calls, letters, faxes and visits did not amount to reasonable steps for realisation and repatriation because no effort was shown to involve the Indian Mission, Consulate or trade bodies; the company's contravention was therefore sustained. The challenge on delay and laches failed because adjudication could not be measured only from the last export date where enquiry with the authorised dealer bank and RBI, and recovery efforts, were still continuing. Penalties on the legal heir of a later managing director and on two other directors were set aside for lack of involvement, while liability of the promoter-managing director was upheld with reduced penalty.
Export proceeds unrealised by a company were treated as Rs. 1.8 crore after allowing adjustments for returned goods and advance remittance, but the Tribunal held that repeated calls, letters, faxes and visits did not amount to reasonable steps for realisation and repatriation because no effort was shown to involve the Indian Mission, Consulate or trade bodies; the company's contravention was therefore sustained. The challenge on delay and laches failed because adjudication could not be measured only from the last export date where enquiry with the authorised dealer bank and RBI, and recovery efforts, were still continuing. Penalties on the legal heir of a later managing director and on two other directors were set aside for lack of involvement, while liability of the promoter-managing director was upheld with reduced penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
