Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.73 seconds)
Jalanchand Mangilal vs Collector Of Customs on 16 July, 1991 cites

Macneill And Magor Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 29 September, 1986

7. On point of valuation he submitted that there was no dispute of valuation before the Adjudicating Authority. The evidence adduced by the appellants before the Tribunal cannot be taken into consideration in view of the substantial difference between the two Bill of Entries. He said that they differ in quality, quantum, Country of origin and even in date of Bill of lading. He argued that though invoice price is different from the 'value' the Department was justified in adopting the declaration of value by Importer as 'means value' relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Macneil and Magor Ltd. Calcutta v. Collector of Customs and Poonam Plastic Industries v. Collector of Customs .
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Poonam Plastic Industries vs Collector Of Customs on 18 March, 1988

7. On point of valuation he submitted that there was no dispute of valuation before the Adjudicating Authority. The evidence adduced by the appellants before the Tribunal cannot be taken into consideration in view of the substantial difference between the two Bill of Entries. He said that they differ in quality, quantum, Country of origin and even in date of Bill of lading. He argued that though invoice price is different from the 'value' the Department was justified in adopting the declaration of value by Importer as 'means value' relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Macneil and Magor Ltd. Calcutta v. Collector of Customs and Poonam Plastic Industries v. Collector of Customs .
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Prahlad Industries vs Collector Of Customs on 10 November, 1986

As a result of further negotiations the suppliers agreed to pay a further sum of U.S. S 5(X)0. He contended that since the appellants were in no way responsible for the supply of wrong goods, they should not be penalised for the mistake of the suppliers. The mistake was not only admitted by them but reimbursed to the extent of U.S. S 10,0(X) in total as compensation. He said that this matter is similar to that of the decision in the case of Prahlad Industries v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and in the facts and circumstances, the charge of misdeclaration is not proved and the order of confiscation cannot sustain.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1