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...
ONT/ONU home gateway units and OLTs were treated as machines for reception and transmission of data under CTI 8517 62 90, not as residual goods under CTI 8517 69 50 or 8517 69 90, because their undisputed function was to receive broadband signals through optical fibre and transmit them to subscriber devices. Exemption denial under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus and Notification No. 57/2017-Cus was remanded for fresh consideration after taking the telecom expert report into account, since the technical characterisation of the goods had not been properly examined. The extended period of limitation was not available because collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was not established, and penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were set aside.
ONT/ONU home gateway units and OLTs were treated as machines for reception and transmission of data under CTI 8517 62 90, not as residual goods under CTI 8517 69 50 or 8517 69 90, because their undisputed function was to receive broadband signals through optical fibre and transmit them to subscriber devices. Exemption denial under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus and Notification No. 57/2017-Cus was remanded for fresh consideration after taking the telecom expert report into account, since the technical characterisation of the goods had not been properly examined. The extended period of limitation was not available because collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts was not established, and penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
