<?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>2009 (5) TMI 943 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184946</link>
    <description>Demurrage charges were treated as potentially includible in the assessable value of imported goods after Circular No. 14/2001-Cus. dated 02.03.2001, which superseded the 1991 circular and stated that such charges formed part of transportation cost. The members noted a later circular dated 12.12.2006, but differed on the effect of the 2001 circular and on whether earlier Tribunal rulings excluding demurrage for the relevant period remained correct. Because authoritative reconsideration was required, the matter was directed for placement before the President to constitute a Larger Bench. No final merits determination on includibility was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 943 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184946</link>
      <description>Demurrage charges were treated as potentially includible in the assessable value of imported goods after Circular No. 14/2001-Cus. dated 02.03.2001, which superseded the 1991 circular and stated that such charges formed part of transportation cost. The members noted a later circular dated 12.12.2006, but differed on the effect of the 2001 circular and on whether earlier Tribunal rulings excluding demurrage for the relevant period remained correct. Because authoritative reconsideration was required, the matter was directed for placement before the President to constitute a Larger Bench. No final merits determination on includibility was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184946</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>