Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.