Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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.