<?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>Diamond pendant qualifies as personal effect for jewelry biz owner. Customs erred in valuation. Refund ordered.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79460</link>
    <description>Petitioner can bring gold chain with diamond pendant into India as personal effect under Baggage Rules 1998. Invoice for diamond purchase though unsigned, cannot be sole basis for rejection. Personal effect interpretation depends on context and person&#039;s background. For high net worth individual like Petitioner engaged in jewelry business with declared income of USD 150,000, expensive jewelry qualifies as personal effect. Customs authorities erred in initiating proceedings merely on high value ascription without considering Petitioner&#039;s background and valuation date discrepancy. Respondents directed to refund Rs. 35,00,000 deposited by Petitioner within four weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:05:19 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:05:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Diamond pendant qualifies as personal effect for jewelry biz owner. Customs erred in valuation. Refund ordered.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79460</link>
      <description>Petitioner can bring gold chain with diamond pendant into India as personal effect under Baggage Rules 1998. Invoice for diamond purchase though unsigned, cannot be sole basis for rejection. Personal effect interpretation depends on context and person&#039;s background. For high net worth individual like Petitioner engaged in jewelry business with declared income of USD 150,000, expensive jewelry qualifies as personal effect. Customs authorities erred in initiating proceedings merely on high value ascription without considering Petitioner&#039;s background and valuation date discrepancy. Respondents directed to refund Rs. 35,00,000 deposited by Petitioner within four weeks.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:05:19 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=79460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>