<?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>2000 (8) TMI 685 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97582</link>
    <description>Service charges paid to a canalising agency in a high-sea-sale import transaction were held includible in the assessable value for customs purposes, following the settled position that such charges form part of the imported goods&#039; value. Stamp duty paid on documents was excluded because it was a statutory levy on the documents and not part of the price or consideration for the goods. Non-disclosure of the canalising agency&#039;s final invoice, which included the service charges, amounted to suppression and misdeclaration, so the extended limitation period was available. Penalties were nevertheless reduced by 50% on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:04:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 685 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97582</link>
      <description>Service charges paid to a canalising agency in a high-sea-sale import transaction were held includible in the assessable value for customs purposes, following the settled position that such charges form part of the imported goods&#039; value. Stamp duty paid on documents was excluded because it was a statutory levy on the documents and not part of the price or consideration for the goods. Non-disclosure of the canalising agency&#039;s final invoice, which included the service charges, amounted to suppression and misdeclaration, so the extended limitation period was available. Penalties were nevertheless reduced by 50% on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>