Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
