Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
