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...
Cold heading quality alloy steel wire in coils was held classifiable as alloy steel wire under CTH 7229 9090, not as wire rods under CTH 7227, because the imported product had undergone wire drawing and subsequent heat treatment and the department failed to produce technical evidence displacing the declared classification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. remained available, so the differential duty and interest demand could not survive once the reclassification failed. Confiscation, penalties, and the extended-period invocation also failed because they were entirely based on the alleged misclassification and wrongful exemption claim, with no material showing suppression or wilful misstatement.
Cold heading quality alloy steel wire in coils was held classifiable as alloy steel wire under CTH 7229 9090, not as wire rods under CTH 7227, because the imported product had undergone wire drawing and subsequent heat treatment and the department failed to produce technical evidence displacing the declared classification. On that basis, the Tribunal held that Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. remained available, so the differential duty and interest demand could not survive once the reclassification failed. Confiscation, penalties, and the extended-period invocation also failed because they were entirely based on the alleged misclassification and wrongful exemption claim, with no material showing suppression or wilful misstatement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
