<?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>2006 (3) TMI 501 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118000</link>
    <description>Customs scrutiny of the declared FOB value for DEPB purposes was considered unwarranted where the export value had already been accepted, no provisional clearance had been made, and the exports had been cleared. The commentary notes that, under the Board&#039;s Circular, any doubt about FOB value should be handled through market enquiry with provisional clearance pending verification. Because the benefit claimed did not exceed what was prescribed in the DEPB scrips issued by the DGFT, the enquiry into export value was treated as beyond Customs jurisdiction, while eligibility for DEPB credit remained a matter for the DGFT. On that basis, a prima facie case existed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:33:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 501 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118000</link>
      <description>Customs scrutiny of the declared FOB value for DEPB purposes was considered unwarranted where the export value had already been accepted, no provisional clearance had been made, and the exports had been cleared. The commentary notes that, under the Board&#039;s Circular, any doubt about FOB value should be handled through market enquiry with provisional clearance pending verification. Because the benefit claimed did not exceed what was prescribed in the DEPB scrips issued by the DGFT, the enquiry into export value was treated as beyond Customs jurisdiction, while eligibility for DEPB credit remained a matter for the DGFT. On that basis, a prima facie case existed for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>