Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Imported goods described as a cross-ply unidirectional laminate of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibres for ballistic protection were held classifiable under CTH 540730, not CTH 39201099, because Chapter 54 and the relevant HSN notes more accurately covered the product than the plastics heading in Chapter 39. The resulting differential customs duty demand with interest was sustained. However, the Tribunal held that a mere dispute over tariff classification did not by itself establish misdeclaration under section 111(m), where the description of the goods in the Bills of Entry was not in dispute. On that basis, confiscation and the consequential penalty under section 112 were set aside.
Imported goods described as a cross-ply unidirectional laminate of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibres for ballistic protection were held classifiable under CTH 540730, not CTH 39201099, because Chapter 54 and the relevant HSN notes more accurately covered the product than the plastics heading in Chapter 39. The resulting differential customs duty demand with interest was sustained. However, the Tribunal held that a mere dispute over tariff classification did not by itself establish misdeclaration under section 111(m), where the description of the goods in the Bills of Entry was not in dispute. On that basis, confiscation and the consequential penalty under section 112 were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.