<?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>2011 (3) TMI 1298 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209532</link>
    <description>Tug charges and beaching-related expenses incurred to move an imported vessel from anchorage to the beaching place were not includible in customs assessable value where the contract for delivery at the place of importation already covered local tug assistance and related port costs. The contract price was treated as the value for delivery at the time and place of importation, and expenses incurred to effect that agreed delivery could not be added under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The valuation rules cited by the Revenue did not justify treating those amounts as separate transportation or handling charges. The appeal succeeded and the assessment addition was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1298 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209532</link>
      <description>Tug charges and beaching-related expenses incurred to move an imported vessel from anchorage to the beaching place were not includible in customs assessable value where the contract for delivery at the place of importation already covered local tug assistance and related port costs. The contract price was treated as the value for delivery at the time and place of importation, and expenses incurred to effect that agreed delivery could not be added under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The valuation rules cited by the Revenue did not justify treating those amounts as separate transportation or handling charges. The appeal succeeded and the assessment addition was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209532</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>