Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6261 to 6280 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Failure to apply the prescribed sequential test under the...
Customs Valuation Rule Sequence must be followed; single-comparator re-determination and penalties set aside without comparability or proof of mis-declaration.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Failure to apply the prescribed sequential test under the Customs Valuation Rules (transaction value under Rule 3 then Rules 4-9) led to an unlawful re-determination of assessable value based on a single contemporaneous import; the decision ignored numerous identical imports by the importer and omitted commercial-level and quantity comparability adjustments, rendering the Rule 5 re-determination invalid. Separately, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were quashed for lack of evidential proof of mis-declaration or any flow-back of consideration, where trade documents showed CIP terms and examining officers had not found mis-declaration at appraisal.
Failure to apply the prescribed sequential test under the Customs Valuation Rules (transaction value under Rule 3 then Rules 4-9) led to an unlawful re-determination of assessable value based on a single contemporaneous import; the decision ignored numerous identical imports by the importer and omitted commercial-level and quantity comparability adjustments, rendering the Rule 5 re-determination invalid. Separately, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were quashed for lack of evidential proof of mis-declaration or any flow-back of consideration, where trade documents showed CIP terms and examining officers had not found mis-declaration at appraisal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
