<?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>2007 (10) TMI 201 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3900</link>
    <description>Demurrage charges payable on imports under a CIF contract were not includible in the assessable value for customs duty for the relevant period because the later 2006 clarification could not be applied retrospectively to enlarge valuation. The Tribunal followed the earlier precedent and the governing position then in force, and rejected inclusion of the charges. The demand and penalty orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 201 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3900</link>
      <description>Demurrage charges payable on imports under a CIF contract were not includible in the assessable value for customs duty for the relevant period because the later 2006 clarification could not be applied retrospectively to enlarge valuation. The Tribunal followed the earlier precedent and the governing position then in force, and rejected inclusion of the charges. The demand and penalty orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3900</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>