Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Valuation - Assessable value of import vessel - Revised Price - Initially, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into with a declared Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) of 10,386 MT for a certain price. However, upon inspection at the time of import, it was found to be 10,200 MT. The appellant argued that they paid the revised price based on the actual LDT found on the ship, which was lower than initially declared. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision, the appellant contended that the revised price should be accepted for customs duty payment. After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting the revised value.
Valuation - Assessable value of import vessel - Revised Price - Initially, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was entered into with a declared Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) of 10,386 MT for a certain price. However, upon inspection at the time of import, it was found to be 10,200 MT. The appellant argued that they paid the revised price based on the actual LDT found on the ship, which was lower than initially declared. Citing legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case and a Tribunal decision, the appellant contended that the revised price should be accepted for customs duty payment. After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting the revised value.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
