Reliable and corroborative evidence is required to support allegations that duty-free imports under a DEEC licence were diverted and that fraudulent exports were made. Official export documentation, manufacturing confirmation, export-proceeds realisation and a criminal-court-accepted closure report were treated as material circumstances; suspicion, unreconciled gaps and uncorroborated assertions could not establish diversion. A duty demand cannot be confirmed on classification, product-description or licence-amendment grounds absent from the show cause notice. Retracted or inconsistent Customs Act statements require independent corroboration and compliance with statutory safeguards. Where the alleged fraud lacks evidentiary support, penalties for abetment or connivance lack an independent foundation. The duty demand, interest and penalties were set aside.

Country-of-origin misdeclaration was established for brass-scrap imports declared as originating in the UAE. Matching container and seal details, together with evidence that the goods were loaded at Karachi and remained in the same containers through Jebel Ali, supported Pakistan as the true origin. Applying the reasoning adopted for a connected live consignment with the same modus operandi and evidence, the Tribunal classified Pakistan-origin goods under CTH 98060000 pursuant to Notification No. 05/2019-Customs, rather than the claimed brass-scrap heading. The resulting differential duty, interest and penalties were sustained, and the appeals were dismissed.

Fraudulent import documents prevent limitation from running until the fraud is discovered: forged Bills of Entry are legally non-existent, and confiscation action may proceed when the fraudulent import is unearthed. Goods imported without payment of customs duty are liable to confiscation where statutory conditions are met. Under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, a person exercising the option to redeem confiscated goods must pay the applicable customs duty, interest and charges as an incident of redemption, irrespective of bona fide belief or lack of knowledge of the fraud. Bona fide purchase may nevertheless be relevant to moderating redemption fine, even though it does not remove duty and interest liability.

The BD Viper LT System, an automated PCR-based platform for detecting high-risk HPV DNA, is classified as an optical checking instrument under tariff item 9031 49 00 rather than as an instrument for chemical analysis under heading 9027. The system processes specimens, generates and compares fluorescence signals against prescribed criteria, and reports positive or negative results; this constitutes checking rather than examination or measurement of the specimen's chemical properties. Classification follows Rule 1 because heading 9031 describes the goods, making Rule 3 inapplicable. The applicable basic customs duty is 7.5% ad valorem, and import IGST is 18%.

Status quo over the company's assets continues pending valuation and determination of the proposed buyout of the appellant's shareholding. As the remaining dispute concerned alternative buyout relief, and the parties had proposed valuers but no appointment or valuation report had been made, the Tribunal was to appoint a valuer, obtain the report, and independently decide the buyout offer expeditiously. The company appeal was disposed of subject to continuation of the existing status quo until that process is completed.

Writ jurisdiction over regulatory ODR arbitration is confined to cases of demonstrable lack of authority, breach of the governing framework, or a patent jurisdictional defect; allocation to an ODR institution empanelled by a particular stock exchange does not alone establish invalidity. Allocation depends on the participant's listing status, relevant exchanges, the grievance, and portal-based allocation. Mandatory participation after unsuccessful conciliation does not create jurisdiction where the framework excludes the dispute, nor does it waive sustainable objections. Limitation, locus, maintainability, prior proceedings, res judicata, abuse of process, arbitrability and substantive entitlement remain for the arbitral forum. The petition was dismissed, requiring participation and applicable fees without prejudice to objections.

For periods before 14 May 2015, Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 confined the taxable value of Customs House Agent services to consideration charged for the taxable service. Rule 5 could not expand that value to include genuine reimbursements of third-party payments, including port, steamer-agent, container freight station, terminal-handling, demurrage and related charges incurred for clients. Recovery of those amounts from clients did not convert them into consideration for CHA services. The later inclusion of reimbursable expenditure in the valuation provision operated prospectively; related service-tax, interest and penalty demands therefore could not stand.

Challenges to disclosed parameter-wise technical evaluations remain maintainable where an earlier challenge was premature and the disclosure creates a fresh cause of action; res judicata and constructive res judicata do not apply to issues that could not then be adjudicated. In public procurement, comparative technical assessment requires disclosed objective standards, recorded reasons for deductions, consistent marking of materially similar proposals, and meaningful communication of reasons. Numerical scores and oral presentations cannot replace contemporaneous reasons or cure undisclosed benchmarks. Failure to meet these requirements makes the evaluation arbitrary, opaque and contrary to equality, natural justice and fair administrative action. The technical evaluations and consequential awards were set aside, with fresh RFPs directed and existing services continued pending completion.

Customs enforcement against undeclared gold importation involved interception of a passenger arriving from Sharjah at Ahmedabad airport following passenger profiling. A gold chain concealed inside clothing was recovered after it was not declared for customs purposes. The chain was seized and the passenger was arrested under the Customs Act, 1962, before being released on bail, with further investigation continuing.

Digital arrest cyber fraud allegedly used impersonation of law-enforcement and central banking officials, fabricated notices, threats of arrest and continuous video communications to coerce a retired railway employee into disclosing financial details and transferring funds for purported verification. The alleged proceeds were routed through mule and shell accounts. Banking records, KYC details, digital evidence and transaction trails allegedly connected a recipient account with suspicious transactions and multiple cyber-fraud cases; part of the cheated amount was recovered or refunded.

CPI(M) alleges that enforcement action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in the CMRL matter is politically motivated targeting of Pinarayi Vijayan, family members and party associates. It contends that searches, questioning and public communications during the investigation were used to create suspicion without incriminating evidence, and characterises references to hawala as a new investigative narrative. The party also alleges selective anti-money-laundering enforcement against opposition leaders and states that the company will address the CMRL-related matter.

Money-laundering proceedings concerning alleged financial irregularities in liquor transport led to the arrest of former Andhra Pradesh minister Karumuri Nageswara Rao under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The inquiry concerns alleged wrongful loss to the government exchequer arising from liquor-transport operations. Investigative measures included raids and the arrest of Rao's son, along with arrests of a former state beverages corporation managing director and the person described as the principal accused.

Alleged forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy concern purported unauthorised changes to LLP statutory records filed with the Registrar of Companies. The allegations include use of false documents to remove a nominated partner, substitute another person as partner and transfer a partner's interest in the LLP. The matter also draws attention to separate land-collaboration allegations and delayed possession claims by homebuyers in a halted housing project.

Voluntary production curtailment by weaving units is being adopted in response to increased polyester yarn and related input costs. Units may reduce shifts or observe periodic holidays according to individual commercial feasibility to limit yarn consumption until prices and fabric-market conditions stabilise. Industry representatives allege that yarn-price increases exceed corresponding input-cost movements and seek examination of possible artificial pricing, along with customs-duty relief on yarn and relevant inputs.

Eligibility for Duty Drawback and RoDTEP on exports to Nepal and Bhutan is governed by the respective Customs notifications where specific conditions differ from amended FTP provisions. INR-denominated settlement permitted under the FTP does not itself confer export-incentive entitlement. Drawback and RoDTEP conditions operate independently under the Customs framework and continue unless the relevant notifications are amended. The FTP governs the permissibility and manner of export and payment, whereas Customs notifications determine admissibility of fiscal benefits.

G.I. wire welded mesh made of iron and steel is classifiable as wire mesh under Sub-heading 73142090, rather than poultry-keeping machinery under Sub-heading 84362900, because it is goods of general application and its use in poultry equipment is not exclusive. Iron cages without automatic devices do not constitute poultry-keeping machinery; excise duty, interest and penalties consequently apply. Freight paid to individual truck operators does not attract service tax under reverse charge as Goods Transport Agency service unless the transport provider issues a consignment note. In the absence of evidence of payments to a Goods Transport Agency, service tax, interest and consequential penalties are not leviable.

Approval under section 10(23C) requires adjudication on the material relevant to the applicant's registration, activities and financial position after a meaningful opportunity to respond. Rejection and cancellation of provisional approval based on non-registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, alleged diversion of funds through construction on trustees' land and profitability were restored for fresh adjudication because requested information had not been furnished by the earlier representative, while subsequent documents included trust registration and audited financial statements. The Commissioner (Exemption) must reconsider the application on merits after granting a hearing, without any finding on eligibility for approval.

Deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was available to a co-operative housing society for the disputed income. The entitlement followed substantially similar findings in the society's earlier assessment years, supported by the applicable Supreme Court ruling and coordinate-bench decisions. Applying that established position, the disallowance of the deduction was deleted.

Interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land constitutes an accretion to the value of the acquired land. It forms an integral part of enhanced compensation, rather than interest for delayed payment. Provisions governing taxation and timing of interest receipts, including Sections 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) and 145A(b), do not alter that compensatory character. Consequently, Section 28 interest forms part of exempt enhanced compensation under Section 10(37) and is not taxable as income from other sources.

Employee stock option scheme expenditure actually incurred and cross-charged by a parent entity is deductible as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. Characterising the cost as notional, contingent or capital does not justify disallowance where jurisdictional High Court and coordinate bench rulings recognise ESOP costs as revenue expenditure. Consistency also supports deduction where the identical issue on unchanged facts has been accepted for the same taxpayer in an earlier assessment year.