https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337445 In a high sea sale transaction, the actual invoiced transaction value prevailed over a notional CIF value plus 2% commission where the higher contract value was available, so customs valuation could not be fixed on the lesser deemed basis. L.C. charges were treated as pre-import expenses and included in assessable value, and administrative charges were also included because no evidence showed they were separate post-import services or deductible amounts. The discrepancy between the agreement value and the higher tax invoice value was treated as misdeclaration and suppression, making the extended limitation period applicable. The differential customs duty demand was sustained. en-us Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2018 15:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337445 In a high sea sale transaction, the actual invoiced transaction value prevailed over a notional CIF value plus 2% commission where the higher contract value was available, so customs valuation could not be fixed on the lesser deemed basis. L.C. charges were treated as pre-import expenses and included in assessable value, and administrative charges were also included because no evidence showed they were separate post-import services or deductible amounts. The discrepancy between the agreement value and the higher tax invoice value was treated as misdeclaration and suppression, making the extended limitation period applicable. The differential customs duty demand was sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 06 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337445