Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 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" ?
Penalty under Section 112(a) was held unsustainable against a Customs House Agent who only assisted in filing the Bill of Entry on a self-declared basis. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence that the CHA had prior knowledge of the concealment of the smuggled goods, and noted that the penalty against the alleged mastermind had already been set aside. It also considered that no proceedings had been initiated against the CHA under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. In the absence of proof of knowledge of concealment and licensing-regulation action, the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Penalty under Section 112(a) was held unsustainable against a Customs House Agent who only assisted in filing the Bill of Entry on a self-declared basis. The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence that the CHA had prior knowledge of the concealment of the smuggled goods, and noted that the penalty against the alleged mastermind had already been set aside. It also considered that no proceedings had been initiated against the CHA under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. In the absence of proof of knowledge of concealment and licensing-regulation action, the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.