COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Section 153C jurisdiction requires timely deemed search and assessee-specific satisfaction material; otherwise reassessment must use the proper statut...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
681 to 700 of 97820 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.