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...
A classification dispute in self-assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal held that where the importer disclosed the relevant particulars in the Bills of Entry and the dispute was only over tariff classification, the extended limitation period under section 28(4) was not available; reliance on statements recorded under section 108 was impermissible without compliance with section 138B. On the same footing, the penalty under section 114A could not survive. The Tribunal also held that wrong classification alone does not amount to misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m), so the confiscation order was set aside.
A classification dispute in self-assessment does not, by itself, establish wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal held that where the importer disclosed the relevant particulars in the Bills of Entry and the dispute was only over tariff classification, the extended limitation period under section 28(4) was not available; reliance on statements recorded under section 108 was impermissible without compliance with section 138B. On the same footing, the penalty under section 114A could not survive. The Tribunal also held that wrong classification alone does not amount to misdeclaration for confiscation under section 111(m), so the confiscation order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
