Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Forfeited refundable die-development deposits are characterised as liquidated damages where they are retained only on a customer's contractual breach, rather than consideration for the manufactured goods. Amounts enter transaction value only when directly and proximately connected with the sale and represent consideration; a valuation rule cannot convert contractual compensation into additional consideration. Consequently, including such deposits in assessable value is unsustainable. Extended limitation also does not apply merely because of an interpretational dispute or short-payment where contractual terms, deposits and accounting treatment were recorded and there is no evidence of deliberate concealment or intent to evade duty. Penalty cannot stand where the duty demand fails and the required intent-based misconduct is not established.
Forfeited refundable die-development deposits are characterised as liquidated damages where they are retained only on a customer's contractual breach, rather than consideration for the manufactured goods. Amounts enter transaction value only when directly and proximately connected with the sale and represent consideration; a valuation rule cannot convert contractual compensation into additional consideration. Consequently, including such deposits in assessable value is unsustainable. Extended limitation also does not apply merely because of an interpretational dispute or short-payment where contractual terms, deposits and accounting treatment were recorded and there is no evidence of deliberate concealment or intent to evade duty. Penalty cannot stand where the duty demand fails and the required intent-based misconduct is not established.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
