Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A partner and partnership firm were considered for separate penalties arising from the same import contravention. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any statutory indication treating the firm as distinct from its partners for this penalty, the penalty on the firm covered the partners' contravention as well; the separate penalty on the partner under Section 112(a) was therefore set aside. For use of false or incorrect declaration documents under Section 114AA, the partner's unwithdrawn statement admitting participation in arranging the import in the firm's name was treated as sufficient evidence, so penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive and disproportionate.
A partner and partnership firm were considered for separate penalties arising from the same import contravention. The Tribunal held that, in the absence of any statutory indication treating the firm as distinct from its partners for this penalty, the penalty on the firm covered the partners' contravention as well; the separate penalty on the partner under Section 112(a) was therefore set aside. For use of false or incorrect declaration documents under Section 114AA, the partner's unwithdrawn statement admitting participation in arranging the import in the firm's name was treated as sufficient evidence, so penalty was upheld in principle, but reduced as excessive and disproportionate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.