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...
Confiscation of declared non-infringing branded shoes was unsustainable where the adjudication order gave no reasons and the classification change did not affect duty liability; the related confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. Absolute confiscation of undeclared counterfeit branded shoes was upheld because the goods were found IPR-infringing and prohibited, even though the right holder reports should have been shared with the importer; the infringement was otherwise not disputed. Penalty was reduced substantially because mala fides were not established and departmental delays caused prejudice, so only a nominal penalty was warranted.
Confiscation of declared non-infringing branded shoes was unsustainable where the adjudication order gave no reasons and the classification change did not affect duty liability; the related confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. Absolute confiscation of undeclared counterfeit branded shoes was upheld because the goods were found IPR-infringing and prohibited, even though the right holder reports should have been shared with the importer; the infringement was otherwise not disputed. Penalty was reduced substantially because mala fides were not established and departmental delays caused prejudice, so only a nominal penalty was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
