Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where customs duty was demanded for breach of notification conditions and penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that the reduced-penalty option under Section 114A could not be applied, because that concession is tied to cases where duty is determined under Section 28 and penalty follows that provision. As Section 112(ii), during the relevant period, prescribed only the penalty range and no 25% payment option, the penalty could not be sustained on that reduced basis. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of customs penalty strictly under Section 112(ii). The respondent's cross objections were treated as an appeal and also remanded for reconsideration of the penalty challenge.
Where customs duty was demanded for breach of notification conditions and penalty was imposed under Section 112(ii) of the Customs Act, the Tribunal held that the reduced-penalty option under Section 114A could not be applied, because that concession is tied to cases where duty is determined under Section 28 and penalty follows that provision. As Section 112(ii), during the relevant period, prescribed only the penalty range and no 25% payment option, the penalty could not be sustained on that reduced basis. The matter was remanded for fresh determination of customs penalty strictly under Section 112(ii). The respondent's cross objections were treated as an appeal and also remanded for reconsideration of the penalty challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
