Customs valuation and import permissibility conflict resolved: accepted enhancement of transaction value removes liability for confiscation and penalt...
Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6601 to 6620 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where the declared import values were substantially lower than contemporaneous values, the proper officer had reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, and rejection of the declared value was justified; the importer's online acceptance of such rejection was treated as voluntary, not coerced. Upon rejection, valuation was required to proceed under the Customs Valuation Rules by applying Rule 4 (identical goods) failing which Rule 5 (similar goods), and the re-determination based on similar goods under Rule 5 was upheld. However, since the importer had correctly declared the transaction value in the Bill of Entry and could not anticipate re-determination, confiscation under Section 111(m) was unwarranted; consequently, redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 were set aside. - CESTAT
Where the declared import values were substantially lower than contemporaneous values, the proper officer had reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the transaction value, and rejection of the declared value was justified; the importer's online acceptance of such rejection was treated as voluntary, not coerced. Upon rejection, valuation was required to proceed under the Customs Valuation Rules by applying Rule 4 (identical goods) failing which Rule 5 (similar goods), and the re-determination based on similar goods under Rule 5 was upheld. However, since the importer had correctly declared the transaction value in the Bill of Entry and could not anticipate re-determination, confiscation under Section 111(m) was unwarranted; consequently, redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 were set aside. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.