<?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>1989 (9) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80174</link>
    <description>For customs valuation of a used machine, the declared invoice price was not conclusive because Section 14 requires assessment on the real value of like goods at the time and place of importation. The department&#039;s relied-upon comparison was rejected as not truly comparable, while other evidence such as earlier invoices, a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, and an affidavit supported valuation on the highest proven basis with freight and insurance added. Since the record did not establish deliberate under-invoicing, mala fides, or intentional misdeclaration, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:05:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (9) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80174</link>
      <description>For customs valuation of a used machine, the declared invoice price was not conclusive because Section 14 requires assessment on the real value of like goods at the time and place of importation. The department&#039;s relied-upon comparison was rejected as not truly comparable, while other evidence such as earlier invoices, a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, and an affidavit supported valuation on the highest proven basis with freight and insurance added. Since the record did not establish deliberate under-invoicing, mala fides, or intentional misdeclaration, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>