Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
