Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not available for a customs demand raised about four years after clearance, because the record showed a consistent earlier and later classification of the same goods without objection and supported a bona fide belief by the importer. It further held that non-imposition of penalty under Section 114AA did not, by itself, mean there was no suppression. Finding no misdeclaration or suppression on the facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as time-barred and allowed the appeal solely on limitation, leaving the classification dispute undecided.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not available for a customs demand raised about four years after clearance, because the record showed a consistent earlier and later classification of the same goods without objection and supported a bona fide belief by the importer. It further held that non-imposition of penalty under Section 114AA did not, by itself, mean there was no suppression. Finding no misdeclaration or suppression on the facts, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order as time-barred and allowed the appeal solely on limitation, leaving the classification dispute undecided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
