Find a Lawyer

APPEAL NO. 113/CU/IB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 5TH MARCH, 2007. versus APPEAL NO. 113/CU/IB OF 2006, DECIDED ON 5TH MARCH, 2007.

Section 25 (a) (i) Customs Rules, 2001, R 113 (1) Estimation of duty and taxes on imported goods and exports Acquisition of short income on the basis that lower freight payable at the time of assessment Was added instead on the airway bill, because the freight amount shown on the supplier's invoice meant that customs duties and other taxes were not paid on the different freight amount on the imported goods, as shown in the invoice. The freight freight amount was the correct amount. There was no evidence of payment of freight on the imported goods. As a clerk, the importer had received a higher price than the goods shown in his receipt and consequently the appellant. Paid more than was shown on the invoice. It could not be imagined that the overseas supplier pays the importer more freight on the account and receives less than where the invoice cost was based on the DRR observation-based freight alliance, There was no compelling evidence to prove that the appellant had suppressed its value. The import freight was already included in the price and the duty and tax were assessed on the basis of the same price and the duty and tax were assessed according to the provisions of section 25 (a) (i) of the Customs Act 1969. R 113 (1) of the Customs Rules 2001 made under it was upheld by the appellate tribunal ordering the lower forums \ r \ n \ r \ n immigration advocate from Pannu aqil lawyer