<?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>2003 (8) TMI 374 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109064</link>
    <description>Customs valuation of petroleum imports cannot be increased on an alleged freight subsidy unless the evidentiary basis for that subsidy is established; material showed no freight payment for the relevant finished products and the supposed subsidy related only to crude oil, so the 20% freight loading was rejected. For C &amp; F consignments, freight could not be notionally added where the declared price already included freight and only insurance would ordinarily be separately considered, so the 14% addition was set aside. The assessment of 35 FOB bills of entry was remanded because the valuation basis had widened beyond the notice and the importers were not given a full opportunity to meet the new ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:56:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146081" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 374 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109064</link>
      <description>Customs valuation of petroleum imports cannot be increased on an alleged freight subsidy unless the evidentiary basis for that subsidy is established; material showed no freight payment for the relevant finished products and the supposed subsidy related only to crude oil, so the 20% freight loading was rejected. For C &amp; F consignments, freight could not be notionally added where the declared price already included freight and only insurance would ordinarily be separately considered, so the 14% addition was set aside. The assessment of 35 FOB bills of entry was remanded because the valuation basis had widened beyond the notice and the importers were not given a full opportunity to meet the new ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>