Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Deliberate misclassification of optical network terminals as subscriber end equipment, coupled with an ineligible exemption claim, justified invocation of the extended limitation period for customs-duty recovery. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods, continued use of the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and equipment approval identifying the goods as GPON ONT supported an inference of intentional duty evasion. The importer's oral assertion that the classification issue had not previously been raised did not rebut those circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the customs-duty demand and dismissed the appeals.
Deliberate misclassification of optical network terminals as subscriber end equipment, coupled with an ineligible exemption claim, justified invocation of the extended limitation period for customs-duty recovery. Inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar goods, continued use of the disputed classification after provisional reassessment, and equipment approval identifying the goods as GPON ONT supported an inference of intentional duty evasion. The importer's oral assertion that the classification issue had not previously been raised did not rebut those circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the customs-duty demand and dismissed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.