Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The appellant provided sufficient evidence regarding the value and there was no dispute that the appellant had paid anything over and above the declared value while procuring the goods. The Apex Court held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. Despite submitting sufficient evidence, the adjudicating authority rejected the declared value on the ground of absence of actual High Sea Sale value and included 2% notional value for assessment. As per Circular No. 32/2004, the actual High Sea Sale contract price paid by the last buyer would be construed as the transaction value u/r 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and inclusion of commission on a notional basis may not be appropriate. The transaction value to be considered is the transaction between the high seas supplier and the appellant, which clearly shows the consideration for the goods as declared by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is sustainable and allowed.
The appellant provided sufficient evidence regarding the value and there was no dispute that the appellant had paid anything over and above the declared value while procuring the goods. The Apex Court held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. Despite submitting sufficient evidence, the adjudicating authority rejected the declared value on the ground of absence of actual High Sea Sale value and included 2% notional value for assessment. As per Circular No. 32/2004, the actual High Sea Sale contract price paid by the last buyer would be construed as the transaction value u/r 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and inclusion of commission on a notional basis may not be appropriate. The transaction value to be considered is the transaction between the high seas supplier and the appellant, which clearly shows the consideration for the goods as declared by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is sustainable and allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
