<?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>1998 (4) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88845</link>
    <description>A compulsory payment made locally by an importer to an indenting agent, when inseparable from the sale of imported machines and required as a condition for obtaining them, was treated as part of the assessable value under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The later breakup of the amount into commission and other charges did not change its character where it was handled as a single component in the transaction. Confiscation based on the resulting valuation and licence discrepancy was upheld, but penalties on the importers and the indenting agent were set aside for lack of mala fides, collusion, or supporting evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:00:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88845</link>
      <description>A compulsory payment made locally by an importer to an indenting agent, when inseparable from the sale of imported machines and required as a condition for obtaining them, was treated as part of the assessable value under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The later breakup of the amount into commission and other charges did not change its character where it was handled as a single component in the transaction. Confiscation based on the resulting valuation and licence discrepancy was upheld, but penalties on the importers and the indenting agent were set aside for lack of mala fides, collusion, or supporting evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>