<?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>1999 (4) TMI 576 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114169</link>
    <description>Actual freight incurred on importation was treated as part of the assessable value where the freight paid exceeded the contractual figure and the higher amount was not shown to result from any supplier&#039;s mistake. On those facts, understatement of import value justified confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were upheld as proportionate to the contravention. The departmental challenge therefore succeeded, and the original adjudication order was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 17:59:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151168" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 576 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114169</link>
      <description>Actual freight incurred on importation was treated as part of the assessable value where the freight paid exceeded the contractual figure and the higher amount was not shown to result from any supplier&#039;s mistake. On those facts, understatement of import value justified confiscation, and the redemption fine and penalty were upheld as proportionate to the contravention. The departmental challenge therefore succeeded, and the original adjudication order was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>