International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6841 to 6860 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Dominant issue 1: Whether transaction value must be fixed by contemporaneous imports under Valuation Rule 4 when declared goods differ in specification. Reasoning: Proper officer reasonably doubted declared value because invoices stated 0.62 mm thickness while actual fabric measured 0.74-0.81 mm (19-30% higher); contemporaneous identical imports showed U.S.$1.80 and $1.85 per metre, so Rule 4 mandates the lower contemporaneous transaction value. Outcome: Assessable value, differential duty and penalty under s.114A are re-determined using U.S.$1.80/m. Dominant issue 2: Whether mis-declaration and confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty justified. Reasoning: Import was mis-declared (s.111(m)); redemption fine was modest and director penalty under s.112(a) was appropriate. Outcome: Confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty upheld. - CESTAT
Dominant issue 1: Whether transaction value must be fixed by contemporaneous imports under Valuation Rule 4 when declared goods differ in specification. Reasoning: Proper officer reasonably doubted declared value because invoices stated 0.62 mm thickness while actual fabric measured 0.74-0.81 mm (19-30% higher); contemporaneous identical imports showed U.S.$1.80 and $1.85 per metre, so Rule 4 mandates the lower contemporaneous transaction value. Outcome: Assessable value, differential duty and penalty under s.114A are re-determined using U.S.$1.80/m. Dominant issue 2: Whether mis-declaration and confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty justified. Reasoning: Import was mis-declared (s.111(m)); redemption fine was modest and director penalty under s.112(a) was appropriate. Outcome: Confiscation, redemption fine and director penalty upheld. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
