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...
Physical and mechanical beneficiation that removes foreign matter and concentrates mineral content was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, and the goods were classifiable as concentrates. Despite failure to follow CT-3 and related procedure, duty-free clearances to 100% EOUs could not be denied because the lapse arose from a bona fide belief that the goods were not dutiable, and the law did not require an impossible act. The department also failed to prove that the disputed clearances were not as such supplies, so those sales were excluded from turnover. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression, clandestine removal, and intent to evade duty were not established in an interpretational dispute, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
Physical and mechanical beneficiation that removes foreign matter and concentrates mineral content was treated as manufacture under Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, and the goods were classifiable as concentrates. Despite failure to follow CT-3 and related procedure, duty-free clearances to 100% EOUs could not be denied because the lapse arose from a bona fide belief that the goods were not dutiable, and the law did not require an impossible act. The department also failed to prove that the disputed clearances were not as such supplies, so those sales were excluded from turnover. The extended limitation period was rejected because suppression, clandestine removal, and intent to evade duty were not established in an interpretational dispute, and the demand, interest and penalty were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
