https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42015 Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act was treated as requiring countervailing duty to be computed on the aggregate of the Section 14 Customs value and the customs duty payable, so basic customs duty could be added to the assessable value. The exemption under Notification No. 302/79 was denied because exemption conditions had to be satisfied strictly and the importer could not fulfil the requirement that the relevant raw material had already borne the prescribed excise duty. Landing charges were also held includible in the value for customs duty, as pre-clearance expenses formed part of the imported goods' value. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 failed because imported and indigenous goods were not comparable classes and the valuation method was valid. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:02:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42015 Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act was treated as requiring countervailing duty to be computed on the aggregate of the Section 14 Customs value and the customs duty payable, so basic customs duty could be added to the assessable value. The exemption under Notification No. 302/79 was denied because exemption conditions had to be satisfied strictly and the importer could not fulfil the requirement that the relevant raw material had already borne the prescribed excise duty. Landing charges were also held includible in the value for customs duty, as pre-clearance expenses formed part of the imported goods' value. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 failed because imported and indigenous goods were not comparable classes and the valuation method was valid. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42015