<?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>1935 (10) TMI 4 - High Court Of Bombay</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193298</link>
    <description>Imported motor cars were valued by reference to the wholesale cash price at the time and place of importation under Section 30(a) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The importer-dealer sale was treated as complete only when the goods arrived in Bombay, the dealers were notified of the price, cash payment was made, and delivery followed within a reasonable time; on that basis, the statutory requirement of a sale at importation was satisfied. The Court also held that the price was a wholesale cash price, and that net discount did not change that character. It further rejected deductions for assembling, cartage, overheads, and similar charges, holding that the statute did not permit reconstruction of a notional value by mathematical reduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2017 12:13:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (10) TMI 4 - High Court Of Bombay</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193298</link>
      <description>Imported motor cars were valued by reference to the wholesale cash price at the time and place of importation under Section 30(a) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The importer-dealer sale was treated as complete only when the goods arrived in Bombay, the dealers were notified of the price, cash payment was made, and delivery followed within a reasonable time; on that basis, the statutory requirement of a sale at importation was satisfied. The Court also held that the price was a wholesale cash price, and that net discount did not change that character. It further rejected deductions for assembling, cartage, overheads, and similar charges, holding that the statute did not permit reconstruction of a notional value by mathematical reduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>