Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.