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...
A pre-existing dispute barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
A pre-existing dispute barred admission of the Section 9 insolvency application where the corporate debtor's reply to the demand notice expressly denied liability and disputed the claim amount, and prior correspondence had already recorded defects, delay and deficient performance. Applying the Mobilox test, the Tribunal held that it was enough that the defence disclosed a plausible dispute requiring further adjudication; the Adjudicating Authority was not to decide the merits of the contractual controversy. The dispute was neither moonshine nor illusory, so insolvency could not be used as a substitute for recovery or contractual adjudication. The rejection of the Section 9 application was therefore affirmed, with liberty to pursue other remedies in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
