Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
Page of 4884
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97661 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that FOB is an INCOTERM reflecting the exporter's...
FOB is Incoterm reflecting exporter's transaction value; declared shipping bill value not automatically confiscable under s.113(i), s.125, ss.114(i) and 114AA
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT held that FOB is an INCOTERM reflecting the exporter's transaction value and that an exporter's declared transaction value in the shipping bill cannot be treated as automatically liable to confiscation merely because a proper officer subsequently re-determines value under the Export Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found no evidence of a parallel undisclosed transaction value and concluded that confiscation under s.113(i), redemption fine under s.125 and penalties under ss.114(i) and 114AA could not be sustained where the exporter had honestly declared FOB transaction value. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
CESTAT held that FOB is an INCOTERM reflecting the exporter's transaction value and that an exporter's declared transaction value in the shipping bill cannot be treated as automatically liable to confiscation merely because a proper officer subsequently re-determines value under the Export Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found no evidence of a parallel undisclosed transaction value and concluded that confiscation under s.113(i), redemption fine under s.125 and penalties under ss.114(i) and 114AA could not be sustained where the exporter had honestly declared FOB transaction value. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.