Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh...
Transferable duty credit scrips validity and bona fide transferee entitlement to exemption upheld where scrips were subsisting at import, appeals allo...
Classification of knocked down motor vehicle component imports: Notification benefit denied because items are standalone non kit parts requiring subst...
Reassessment against a deceased assessee: procedural defect mandates fresh reassessment; nonresponsive petitioner may be treated as legal representati...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6461 to 6480 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" ?
Re-determination of assessable value under customs valuation focuses on whether declared transaction value includes costs for delivery and whether rule 10 supplementation or surrogate valuation was justified. The analysis emphasises that declared price purporting to be CIF cannot be supplemented by loading costs under rule 10 absent evidence that such costs were excluded from the contracted price, and that dispute over origin does not ipso facto render shipment costs indeterminate. The absence of use of rule 7 and rule 8 procedures for identical or similar goods was criticised, and the tribunal found no legal basis for upward re-valuation, confiscation or penalties on the impugned facts, setting aside the order.
Re-determination of assessable value under customs valuation focuses on whether declared transaction value includes costs for delivery and whether rule 10 supplementation or surrogate valuation was justified. The analysis emphasises that declared price purporting to be CIF cannot be supplemented by loading costs under rule 10 absent evidence that such costs were excluded from the contracted price, and that dispute over origin does not ipso facto render shipment costs indeterminate. The absence of use of rule 7 and rule 8 procedures for identical or similar goods was criticised, and the tribunal found no legal basis for upward re-valuation, confiscation or penalties on the impugned facts, setting aside the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.