<?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>1983 (12) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41484</link>
    <description>Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 applies only to imports by an agent, distributor, indentor, or a branch or subsidiary acting in that capacity for further distribution, and not to goods imported for the importer&#039;s own consumption. A contractual condition requiring diversion of part of the consignment to the State Trading Corporation did not convert the importer into that corporation&#039;s agent or distributor. The agreement also showed that the corporation was to bear part of the related expenses, which undermined any basis for adding the importer&#039;s expenses to the invoice price. The proposed 2% loading to the invoice value was therefore unsupported and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2010 16:51:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41484</link>
      <description>Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 applies only to imports by an agent, distributor, indentor, or a branch or subsidiary acting in that capacity for further distribution, and not to goods imported for the importer&#039;s own consumption. A contractual condition requiring diversion of part of the consignment to the State Trading Corporation did not convert the importer into that corporation&#039;s agent or distributor. The agreement also showed that the corporation was to bear part of the related expenses, which undermined any basis for adding the importer&#039;s expenses to the invoice price. The proposed 2% loading to the invoice value was therefore unsupported and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>