<?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>2013 (8) TMI 134 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235839</link>
    <description>A lump sum technology transfer payment linked to the import programme and pricing structure of imported car kits was treated as part of the condition of sale and included in assessable value under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. On limitation, non-disclosure of technical documentation and related conduct supported invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Redemption fine was not sustained because the goods were not available for confiscation at adjudication. Penalties were partly upheld in principle, but the quantum was reduced for some noticees and the penalty on the professional adviser was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 May 2015 11:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 134 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235839</link>
      <description>A lump sum technology transfer payment linked to the import programme and pricing structure of imported car kits was treated as part of the condition of sale and included in assessable value under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. On limitation, non-disclosure of technical documentation and related conduct supported invocation of the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Redemption fine was not sustained because the goods were not available for confiscation at adjudication. Penalties were partly upheld in principle, but the quantum was reduced for some noticees and the penalty on the professional adviser was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235839</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>