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...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7041 to 7060 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For second-hand machinery, customs valuation must follow the statutory sequence under the Valuation Rules and cannot rest on internet offers, broad market estimates, or unsupported tonnage methods. Where imported cranes were examined, assessed on chartered engineer certification, and no reliable evidence of a higher transaction value or legally admissible corroboration existed, the later redetermination of assessable value and differential duty failed. A time-bar also applied to consignments beyond five years under Section 28, so duty could not survive on those imports. Mere mismatch between declared invoice value and later revalued figures did not prove misdeclaration for confiscation or penalty under Section 111(m); redemption fine and penalties were set aside. The same unsustainable valuation basis could not support finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18.
For second-hand machinery, customs valuation must follow the statutory sequence under the Valuation Rules and cannot rest on internet offers, broad market estimates, or unsupported tonnage methods. Where imported cranes were examined, assessed on chartered engineer certification, and no reliable evidence of a higher transaction value or legally admissible corroboration existed, the later redetermination of assessable value and differential duty failed. A time-bar also applied to consignments beyond five years under Section 28, so duty could not survive on those imports. Mere mismatch between declared invoice value and later revalued figures did not prove misdeclaration for confiscation or penalty under Section 111(m); redemption fine and penalties were set aside. The same unsustainable valuation basis could not support finalisation of provisional assessment under Section 18.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.