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...
Arbitral awards on prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum-wage escalation, Environmental Compensation Charges and taxes were upheld under Section 34 because the tribunal had adopted a plausible view on the contract, delay attribution and quantification of damages. The court treated the prolongation-cost methodology as a permissible estimate based on record and industry practice, and refused re-appreciation of evidence. It also sustained reimbursement for GST introduced during the extended period, held that a minimum-wage escalation bar could not defeat compensation for employer-caused delay, and accepted ECC as an additional charge not clearly barred by the exclusion clause. The majority award was treated as binding, and no patent illegality or perversity was shown.
Arbitral awards on prolongation costs, GST reimbursement, minimum-wage escalation, Environmental Compensation Charges and taxes were upheld under Section 34 because the tribunal had adopted a plausible view on the contract, delay attribution and quantification of damages. The court treated the prolongation-cost methodology as a permissible estimate based on record and industry practice, and refused re-appreciation of evidence. It also sustained reimbursement for GST introduced during the extended period, held that a minimum-wage escalation bar could not defeat compensation for employer-caused delay, and accepted ECC as an additional charge not clearly barred by the exclusion clause. The majority award was treated as binding, and no patent illegality or perversity was shown.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
