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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
In the case before CESTAT Bangalore, the issue revolved around mis-declaration of import value, duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing software development services, imported a semi-conductor fabrication system. The appellant declared the value based on the supplier's proforma invoice, which was later found to be undervalued due to the goods being used. The Chartered Engineer enhanced the value, impacting the export obligation. The tribunal held that there was no intentional mis-declaration or suppression by the appellant, as the declared value was based on the proforma invoice. Consequently, the confiscation order and penalty imposed under section 112(a)(ii) were set aside.
In the case before CESTAT Bangalore, the issue revolved around mis-declaration of import value, duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing software development services, imported a semi-conductor fabrication system. The appellant declared the value based on the supplier's proforma invoice, which was later found to be undervalued due to the goods being used. The Chartered Engineer enhanced the value, impacting the export obligation. The tribunal held that there was no intentional mis-declaration or suppression by the appellant, as the declared value was based on the proforma invoice. Consequently, the confiscation order and penalty imposed under section 112(a)(ii) were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
