Incomplete BIS testing cannot justify reclassification or confiscatory action; declared customs classification restored and enhanced redemption fine s...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3121 to 3140 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that advertisement and promotional expenses (APE) and management service fees (MSF) paid by the importer cannot be added to the transaction value under rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules or treated as a condition of sale under section 14(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found APE were incurred on the importer's own account per rule 3(2)(b) and MSF constituted independent service consideration unconnected with import pricing. Consequently, differential duty, interest under section 28AA and penalty under section 114A could not be imposed, and invocation of extended limitation was unsustainable.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that advertisement and promotional expenses (APE) and management service fees (MSF) paid by the importer cannot be added to the transaction value under rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valuation Rules or treated as a condition of sale under section 14(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found APE were incurred on the importer's own account per rule 3(2)(b) and MSF constituted independent service consideration unconnected with import pricing. Consequently, differential duty, interest under section 28AA and penalty under section 114A could not be imposed, and invocation of extended limitation was unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
