<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (1) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81992</link>
    <description>For customs valuation under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, the relevant freight element depended on the normal mode of import shown by the invoice and confirmation order. The Tribunal found that the goods were ordinarily meant to be transported by sea, and the department had not proved that they were exclusively imported by air. Sea freight was therefore the proper basis for the CIF value, and air freight could not be included on the facts established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:20:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 238 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81992</link>
      <description>For customs valuation under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, the relevant freight element depended on the normal mode of import shown by the invoice and confirmation order. The Tribunal found that the goods were ordinarily meant to be transported by sea, and the department had not proved that they were exclusively imported by air. Sea freight was therefore the proper basis for the CIF value, and air freight could not be included on the facts established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>