IBC appellate review of an approved resolution plan is confined to statutory non-compliance, demonstrated prejudice, and material irregularity, without substituting the Committee of Creditors' commercial assessment. Suspended directors may challenge plan approval as aggrieved persons, but failure to supply plan materials does not invalidate approval absent prejudice, particularly where confidentiality requirements were unmet. A practising chartered accountant is not disqualified as a resolution applicant solely by professional status. CIRP can be withdrawn only through the prescribed Section 12A process; an uncompleted settlement does not halt it. Government claims not included in an approved plan are addressed by the clean-slate principle, and statutory dues lack automatic secured-creditor parity.

Pre-amendment insolvency disciplinary procedure required a show cause notice to follow a completed investigation, consideration of its report, and a prima facie opinion based on sufficient cause. Where action rests on material outside the investigation, the independent material must be identified and supplied to the insolvency professional. Procedural review of disciplinary action focuses on fairness rather than reassessment of merits. Relevant defences, a reasonably possible interpretation of committee composition rules, the temporal applicability of liquidation-cost requirements, and evidence explaining auction delays must be considered. Findings cannot rely on meetings or allegations beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Non-disclosure of material and failure to consider relevant circumstances vitiate disciplinary action.

Approved resolution plans under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code bind members and can validly extinguish pre-CIRP equity shareholding and consequential membership rights. Section 59 of the Companies Act provides a limited rectification remedy for entries or omissions made without sufficient cause; it cannot collaterally reopen an approved plan or revive extinguished shares. Membership in a share-capital company remains inseparable from shareholding, while post-implementation annual returns reflect restructured capital rather than continuity of cancelled holdings. Administrative register provisions and procedural rules create no independent substantive entitlement. Claims for replacement shares, compensation, interest, or mental-suffering damages inconsistent with plan finality fall outside rectification jurisdiction; the Code's overriding effect prevails over inconsistent company-law remedies.

Ministerial authorisation enabling the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to present proceedings approved by the Central Government does not amount to delegation of statutory discretion where the Government itself made the substantive decision. Under the Allocation of Business Rules and Transaction of Business Rules, an authorised officer may implement that decision without a notification delegating power under the Companies Act, 2013; proceedings instituted in the Union of India's name remain valid. Disgorgement, as an equitable remedy preventing retention of undue gains, is not confined to Section 212(14A). The statutory framework permits the Central Government to seek attachment and disgorgement through Sections 241(2), 242, 246 and 339.

Specific tariff coverage for Magnesia Carbon Bricks prevails over a residuary heading for mineral substances, preserving classification as refractory goods and eligibility for concessional basic customs duty. For imports before 1 January 2022, Chapter Note 1 did not exclude goods heated below 800 C from Chapter 69; the later exclusion applies only prospectively. HSN explanatory material cannot override unaligned Indian Customs Tariff wording, and the firing requirement does not apply to the relevant refractory headings. Correct classification and exemption declarations do not establish intentional misdeclaration, so a disputed claim alone cannot sustain confiscation or penalty.

Customs Broker licence revocation proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 must comply with natural justice where the show-cause notice and offence report rely on statements of F-Card and G-Card holders. Non-supply of those relied-upon statements, despite repeated requests, prevents the Customs Broker from effectively addressing, contradicting, or making submissions on the allegations. Fresh adjudication is required after furnishing the statements and providing a reasonable opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice and enquiry report.

Section 138B of the Customs Act permits statements to prove their contents only in prescribed circumstances. Retracted statements and statements of other persons cannot constitute legal evidence against a noticee when requested cross-examination of their makers is denied. Material concerning a broader smuggling syndicate does not, by itself, establish that particular seized gold was smuggled. Where no independent admissible evidence establishes the noticee's knowledge, receipt, refining, or involvement in smuggled gold, confiscation under Section 111(d) and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) lack a sustainable evidentiary basis. Denial of cross-examination also breaches principles of natural justice.

Customs-duty exemption applies to goods imported into an SEZ unit for authorised operations under the SEZ Act. Duty becomes chargeable only when goods are removed from the SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area, using the rate and valuation applicable at removal. Goods retained in an FTWZ for intended authorised operations cannot be subjected to a differential-duty computation merely to require a bank guarantee for provisional release. A bank guarantee based on such duty is therefore unsustainable; provisional release may instead be secured by a bond equal to the value of the goods. Customs duty arises upon clearance of manufactured goods from the SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area after authorised operations.

Low-ethoxylated non-ionic fatty alcohol ethoxylates fall outside the tariff category for organic surface-active agents where they do not satisfy the cumulative Chapter 34 water-solubility and surface-tension conditions. A product must form a transparent or translucent liquid or stable emulsion without separation of insoluble matter and reduce surface tension to the prescribed level. Chemical testing showed a translucent liquid separating into two layers, failing the required water-solubility condition. Water-insoluble surface-active products are therefore classified as miscellaneous chemical products under tariff items 3824 9090/3824 9990 rather than under tariff item 3402 1300, rendering the consequential differential duty, confiscation, interest and penalties unsustainable.

Voluntary disclosure and rectification of an omitted supplier invoice shortly after customs clearance can establish a bona fide declaration error rather than duty evasion. Where the importer seeks reassessment and pays differential duty before departmental detection, and the supplier's communication supports the inadvertent omission, a residual customs penalty is not justified without evidence of wilful non-compliance or intent to evade duty. Penalty under the residual provision is therefore unsustainable in the absence of mens rea.

Notified gold under the Customs Act places the burden on persons in possession to establish lawful procurement and transportation. Absence of licit documents at interception, coupled with an ownership claim and supporting material produced only after issuance of a show-cause notice, failed to discharge that burden where the alleged owner had not claimed the goods during investigation. Absolute confiscation was therefore sustained. Carriers transporting foreign-origin gold without lawful documents remained liable to penalty. Penalty against the person alleged to have arranged the transaction was justified for misleading the investigation, but its quantum was reduced.

Personal penalties for alleged aiding and abetting of gold smuggling under Section 112(a) require proof beyond suspicion. Statements recorded under Section 108 may be substantive material, but accomplice statements require corroboration in material particulars under Section 114 illustration (b) of the Indian Evidence Act. Co-accused statements, call-data material and alleged use of a syndicate member's SIM card did not establish complicity where no incriminating material or SIM card was recovered and the SIM usage remained unverified. Calls reporting concealed gold supported the official's explanation. The alleged involvement in smuggling was therefore not proved, rendering the personal penalties unsustainable.

Customs classification of mixed lots of polyester knitted fabric must be determined by the actual composition of each imported consignment. Reclassification from the accepted tariff entry requires cogent technical evidence, such as laboratory testing, establishing that the alternative entry applies; a later change of view or a general description of assorted fabrics is insufficient. In the absence of such evidence, the accepted classification and related concessional-duty treatment continue. Where the dispute is interpretational and no deliberate suppression, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty is established, penalty for misdeclaration is not attracted.

Prospective operation of an amendment prevents its use against imports covered by bills of lading issued before the amendment commenced, unless retrospective effect is expressly provided. An amendment effective from 15 June 2026 therefore cannot be invoked to refuse consideration of provisional release under the Customs Act for such imports. Provisional release must be considered under the applicable law and granted on compliance with imposed conditions.

Provisional release of imported goods may be secured without requiring a bank guarantee approaching twice the duty liability where Revenue's interests are adequately protected through proportionate safeguards. Payment of duty on the declared value, coupled with a personal bond for any additional duty ultimately determined, provides sufficient protection pending adjudication. The bank-guarantee requirement was set aside, and release was directed subject to payment of applicable declared-value duty and execution of a personal bond for any balance duty.

Customs-clearance facilitation, including handling import documents, instructing a Customs Broker, paying assessed duty, and arranging examination, clearance and transport, does not by itself establish beneficial ownership, authorised agency, or knowing participation in misdeclaration. Differential duty and consequential interest cannot be imposed without foundational facts proving ownership, express or implied authorisation by the importer, or knowledge of concealed goods and false documentation. Penalty for duty evasion requires proof of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression, while penalty for false documents requires knowing or intentional use of materially false documentation. In the absence of those statutory ingredients, duty liability, interest and penalties cannot be imposed on the facilitator.

National Litigation Policy exceptions must be raised before the High Court to be relied upon in a Special Leave Petition. Failure to urge the purported exception at the High Court stage resulted in the Special Leave Petition being declined, as the ground was not available for consideration at that later stage.

Approval of a Port Trust as custodian of an imported-goods customs area under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act is valid where the Major Port Trusts Act imposes no corresponding customs-duty liability for pilferage. The Port Trust's bailee-like civil liability to goods owners for loss, destruction or deterioration is distinct from its statutory liability to Revenue under Section 45(3). Section 13 relieves the importer of duty on pilfered goods, while Section 45(3) places that liability on an approved custodian. Customs-duty liability therefore arises only for pilferage during the period of valid approval, not before notification.

Revision under section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue; collecting material without a conscious enquiry, legal analysis or reasoned view does not satisfy that standard. Interest on compensation or enhanced compensation is charged as income from other sources on receipt, with only the prescribed deduction, and agricultural-land capital-gains exemption does not displace that scheme. Faceless assessment is procedural and does not alter jurisdiction determined by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Reopening approval, alleged defects in an operative assessment order, audit objections or an Assessing Officer's proposal do not preclude revision where the Principal Commissioner independently examines the record and forms the required satisfaction.

PAN status declared in the PAN application and used in filed returns may be used by CPC for limited prima facie processing under section 143(1)(a); substantive correction of an entity's tax status lies outside that automated process. A Delaware limited partnership's Indian tax characterisation requires examination under Articles 3 and 4 of the India-USA DTAA, including corporate treatment, US fiscal transparency, and whether income is taxed to the entity or its partners. That determination affects short-term capital-loss carry-forward and return-filing timing. Departmental records must also be checked where electronic communication is claimed to have been sent to an email address not furnished by the taxpayer.