<?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>2009 (2) TMI 302 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75199</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value for imported used computers could not be rejected merely on suspicion where no legally sustainable basis was shown for discarding the Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, so enhancement of value was not justified. Import of second-hand computers without the required special licence remained liable to confiscation under customs law, but redemption fine and penalty were confined to the established proportional limits. Undeclared 500 CD-ROMs and one Pentium III computer required separate valuation because they were not covered by the filed bills of entry, and the matter had to be re-quantified on the basis of the Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate for assessable value, fine and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 302 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75199</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value for imported used computers could not be rejected merely on suspicion where no legally sustainable basis was shown for discarding the Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, so enhancement of value was not justified. Import of second-hand computers without the required special licence remained liable to confiscation under customs law, but redemption fine and penalty were confined to the established proportional limits. Undeclared 500 CD-ROMs and one Pentium III computer required separate valuation because they were not covered by the filed bills of entry, and the matter had to be re-quantified on the basis of the Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate for assessable value, fine and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>