<?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>2002 (9) TMI 441 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104289</link>
    <description>A special import licence must be read with the item list attached at the time of issue, and a later EXIM policy amendment or DGFT clarification cannot retrospectively restrict imports already covered by that licence. The document also notes that valuation enhancement based on an earlier import is not justified where the present goods differ materially in quantity and country of origin, because comparable-value comparisons require substantially similar import conditions. On these facts, the earlier licence governed clearance and the proposed enhancement of value lacked a proper comparable basis, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:18:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 441 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104289</link>
      <description>A special import licence must be read with the item list attached at the time of issue, and a later EXIM policy amendment or DGFT clarification cannot retrospectively restrict imports already covered by that licence. The document also notes that valuation enhancement based on an earlier import is not justified where the present goods differ materially in quantity and country of origin, because comparable-value comparisons require substantially similar import conditions. On these facts, the earlier licence governed clearance and the proposed enhancement of value lacked a proper comparable basis, so the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>