Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5561 to 5580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reusable metal containers owned by an overseas supplier and imported with raw material were not treated as separately dutiable goods under the Customs Act, 1962; applying the Supreme Court principle in Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust v. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies, the Tribunal held that duty could not be demanded again on the containers. Under section 14 read with Rule 10(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, only packing cost actually incurred or payable by the importer could be included, and the rental value of the packing material was already reflected in the CIF value of the imported synthetic rubber. The reassessment, including interest and penalties, was set aside.
Reusable metal containers owned by an overseas supplier and imported with raw material were not treated as separately dutiable goods under the Customs Act, 1962; applying the Supreme Court principle in Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust v. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies, the Tribunal held that duty could not be demanded again on the containers. Under section 14 read with Rule 10(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, only packing cost actually incurred or payable by the importer could be included, and the rental value of the packing material was already reflected in the CIF value of the imported synthetic rubber. The reassessment, including interest and penalties, was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
