Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
A refund of Extra Duty Deposit was held not hit by unjust enrichment where the disputed amount had been shown as recoverable in the relevant balance sheet, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, and the payment had been made from a promoter's loan that was a transaction distinct from the import itself. The Tribunal found that such loan funding did not amount to passing on the duty incidence to another person, so credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the appellant. It also held that interest was payable on the delayed refund in accordance with the Customs Act, applying the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories.
A refund of Extra Duty Deposit was held not hit by unjust enrichment where the disputed amount had been shown as recoverable in the relevant balance sheet, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, and the payment had been made from a promoter's loan that was a transaction distinct from the import itself. The Tribunal found that such loan funding did not amount to passing on the duty incidence to another person, so credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the appellant. It also held that interest was payable on the delayed refund in accordance with the Customs Act, applying the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.