Customs Broker licence restrictions prohibit sale or transfer, but handling specified import transactions or obtaining business through a clearing and forwarding agent does not by itself establish either prohibited conduct or unauthorised Customs business. Special Import Licence debit entries are made, recorded and verified by Customs officers before out-of-charge; where the licence is valid and not alleged to be forged, a Customs Broker who only submits it is not responsible for debit discrepancies. A material reduction between the over-debiting alleged in the show-cause notice and the limited debit ultimately attributed, together with the Broker's limited role, made the revocation order unsustainable. Licence revocation, security forfeiture and penalty were set aside.

Export transaction value remains the price paid or payable by the buyer for delivery at the place of export where otherwise acceptable. Overseas agency commission paid from sale proceeds is a selling expense: Customs valuation rules neither require its deduction nor impose a ceiling, including where it exceeds 12.5% of FOB value. For Duty Drawback, RoDTEP and RoSCTL, agency commission and foreign bank charges are deductible from FOB value only to the extent exceeding 12.5% for incentive computation, subject to correct shipping-bill declaration. Remittance permissibility under FEMA, RBI directions and foreign trade law remains outside this scope.

Participation in arbitration despite knowledge that a sole arbitrator departs from an agreed three-member tribunal, coupled with consent to time extensions and counterclaims, constitutes waiver and acquiescence in the tribunal's composition. An insolvency moratorium restricts recovery proceedings against a corporate debtor but does not bar it from pursuing its own arbitral claims, including through persons authorised by the resolution professional with creditor-committee approval. Extension of an arbitral mandate lies with the court defined as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction or an original-jurisdiction High Court. Appointment jurisdiction for constituting a tribunal creates no continuing supervisory power to extend its mandate and does not trigger exclusive-jurisdiction rules.

Investor compensation claims arising from a fraudulent prospectus may, where the issuer is in insolvency and fraudulent-trading proceedings are pending, be treated as proceedings benefiting all creditors rather than personal claims. Recovery from allegedly responsible persons, including the statutory auditor, must be pursued within the insolvency framework for the Committee of Creditors. A civil suit against the auditor was therefore rejected, with recourse identified under the IBC fraudulent-trading provision. Allocation of fraudulent-trading recoveries to a resolution applicant reflects the Committee of Creditors' commercial bargain and does not create a general exclusion of creditors.

Committee of Creditors may, through commercial wisdom, invite fresh expressions of interest by publishing a Third Form G where a remitted resolution plan and settlement proposal fail to secure statutory approval. Approval of an earlier plan does not give the resolution applicant an indefeasible right before approval under Section 31; absent legal infirmity, the decision need not be judicially substituted. Assigned creditor claims recognised only after committee voting do not retrospectively alter the voting position where original allottees remained creditors of record, and unproved allegations of fraud or material irregularity do not invalidate prior decisions. Intervention cannot introduce independent issues beyond the appeal's subject matter. Publication was upheld, while the challenges and intervention applications failed.

Section 60(5) jurisdiction extends to a Liquidator's recovery of unpaid business-purchase consideration where the amount is a receivable of the liquidation estate and its recovery directly augments assets available to creditors. A contractual provision envisaging payment from income generated by the acquired business governs the payment mechanism but does not extinguish the purchaser's primary payment obligation. Controlling directors who acquired and exercised effective managerial, financial and operational control through the purchaser-company cannot rely on privity or separate corporate personality to avoid liability arising from their own acts. Recovery, with interest, was confined to the purchaser-company and the three controlling directors against whom relief was sought.

Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act permits arrest only where the authorised officer records reasons to believe, based on material, that the person is guilty, and compliance is subject to judicial review. After the enforcement authority used section 50 summons powers to examine a cooperating person on existing material and obtained no fresh incriminating material, it could not resort to arrest on that same material without a supervening circumstance making arrest imperative. The High Court treated such recourse as a colourable exercise of power, held the arrest non-compliant with section 19, quashed the remand orders, and directed immediate release.

Supply of relied-upon documents in PMLA complaint proceedings engages the trial court's fair-trial obligation to provide complaint materials to the accused. Whether the best available copies were furnished or documents are unavailable remains for determination on the trial-court record; inherent jurisdiction should not pre-empt that factual determination absent patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction. Observations made to secure compliance with document-supply timelines do not determine the integrity of the investigating agency or officer and should not affect other proceedings. Investigating Officer attendance may be required when necessary, including through video-conferencing, but not automatically on every hearing date; each direction should specify its purpose.

Under PMLA, the discretionary and drastic arrest power requires observance of statutory safeguards. Where the investigating authority obtains permission to examine an accused on existing material but abandons that examination, arrest on the same material requires strong fresh incriminating material or supervening circumstances warranting immediate action. Omission of the earlier examination order from the arrest application, coupled with failure to address the objection at remand, supports judicial review and may indicate a colourable exercise of power. On the stated facts, the arrest was treated as unsustainable; remand orders were set aside and bail granted subject to conditions, without affecting trial merits.

Unsubstantiated advertising receipts retained after identifiable advertising expenditure, where no agreement or supporting material establishes the claimed commission, may be treated as proceeds of crime in the recipient's possession when the statutory burden is not discharged. Property of equivalent value may be provisionally attached where directly or indirectly derived criminal property is unavailable because it has vanished or been laundered. Immovable property so attached represents the value of unavailable proceeds, rather than direct proceeds of crime.

VCES eligibility is assessed as at the prescribed date; an investigation initiated later does not retrospectively disqualify a declarant. A higher tax computation based on contracts, accounts, returns and tax records does not, without identified material discrepancies, establish a substantially false declaration where receipts raise disputes over taxability, classification, valuation or taxes paid by principal contractors. The statutory deeming rule invokes recovery machinery but does not alter the return-based relevant date or restart limitation. Extended recovery requires deliberate suppression with intent to evade; reconstruction from disclosed records and legal characterisation disputes does not meet that standard. VCES payments remain non-refundable under the statutory bar.

Admitted execution and delivery of settlement cheques trigger presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt; a security-cheque defence must provide a probable basis to displace them. Completion of particulars in a voluntarily delivered signed cheque differs from material alteration, which requires proof of an unauthorised change to an existing entry; a collecting-bank endorsement alone does not establish alteration. Additional defence evidence on appeal is not an unrestricted entitlement and may be refused when belated, unproved, or unnecessary. Compensation should realistically reflect the cheque amount and deprivation of payment. The conviction, compensation and default sentence remained, while substantive imprisonment was reduced to six months based on individual circumstances and deposits.

Statutory auditors face a prima facie money-laundering charge only where the record establishes a nexus between their conduct and the offence, rather than mere suspicion or assumed lack of diligence. Material must link the auditor to proceeds of crime or to the placement, layering, or integration of illicit funds, and support knowledge of and participation in the relevant transactions. An audit engagement commencing after the alleged generation of illicit proceeds, or a financial-statement note signed by management rather than included in the audit report, does not by itself establish such involvement. Absent that material, no prima facie money-laundering offence arises.

Regular bail in a murder prosecution was not warranted where eyewitness material attributed a specific overt act to the applicant. Bail granted to a co-accused did not establish parity because that co-accused was not attributed any specific overt act. Prolonged incarceration and the absence of misuse of earlier temporary bail did not outweigh the gravity of the accusation and the applicant's alleged individual role in the offence.

Regular bail cannot be refused solely because a co-accused absconded. Entitlement must be assessed on the applicant's own circumstances, including parity where most co-accused have bail, surrender after Covid-period bail, more than five years of actual incarceration, and failure to frame charges. These factors supported grant of regular bail notwithstanding the absent co-accused and non-commencement of trial.

Computer reservation system services supplied by foreign reservation companies do not constitute online information and database access or retrieval services where the underlying data or information belongs to the airline receiving the service. Under the Finance Act, 1994 and the reverse-charge framework in the Service Tax Rules, 2002, tax liability for OIDAR services does not arise in such circumstances. Computer reservation system agreements involving airline-owned data therefore fall outside the taxable OIDAR category.

The challenge to the arrest order raises whether the need-to-arrest test was satisfied and whether a writ petition challenging the arrest is maintainable. Both parties rely on the same judicial precedent but advance differing interpretations: the petitioner invokes it for the need-to-arrest requirement, while the respondent relies on it regarding writ maintainability. Detailed arguments were deferred, with directions for concise written synopses and a counter-affidavit before further hearing.

Customised die-cast aluminium enclosures designed solely for Wi-Fi receivers are classified as parts of heading 8517 rather than aluminium articles or parts of general use. Under Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation and Section XVI Note 2(b), classification turns on dedicated use and indispensable functions, including structural integrity, electromagnetic shielding, heat dissipation and environmental protection. The applicable tariff treatment is Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90. Confidential treatment requires a substantiated basis that proprietary technical or commercially sensitive information warrants protection. Where product details are publicly available and no specific sensitive material is identified, confidentiality is unavailable.

Classification of imported fibre-optic transmitters, receivers and transceivers is in issue between CTH 85176290 and CTH 854230. Related questions concern eligibility for the exemption at Serial No. 20 of Notification No. 57/2017, the extended limitation period, confiscation and penalties. Notice has been issued, and assistance has been sought from the Additional Solicitor General on the legal questions. No final determination on classification, exemption, limitation, confiscation or penalties is recorded.

Penalty for under-reporting of income is not attracted where a co-operative society maintains books, fully discloses income particulars, and makes a bona fide deduction claim. Disallowance based solely on the tax officer's view that profits from non-PDS trading and miscellaneous income are ineligible, particularly where profit allocation is mathematical, does not establish under-reporting. Failure to account for an otherwise available statutory deduction further supports the absence of under-reporting.