Revisional jurisdiction over export quota premium deductions requires both error and Revenue prejudice; a permissible assessment view cannot be displa...
Final benami adjudication bars contradictory tax-evasion prosecution where settlement findings confirm full disclosure and cooperation without conceal...
Faceless assessment and registration procedures are updated through electronic communication, revised recovery rules, extended deadlines, and replacem...
Risk-based selective vessel boarding requires accurate declarations and preserves master and agent liability where physical inspections are not select...
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 4891 
