<?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>2002 (10) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46386</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the proviso (ii) to Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, which fixed handling charges at one percent of the FOB value of imported goods. The court found that the rule-making authority acted within its powers under the Customs Act and that the rule aimed to achieve certainty and uniformity in valuation. The court determined that the method of fixing handling charges was not arbitrary or discriminatory, dismissing the writ petitions and appeals without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 14:13:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46386</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the proviso (ii) to Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, which fixed handling charges at one percent of the FOB value of imported goods. The court found that the rule-making authority acted within its powers under the Customs Act and that the rule aimed to achieve certainty and uniformity in valuation. The court determined that the method of fixing handling charges was not arbitrary or discriminatory, dismissing the writ petitions and appeals without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>