<?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>1991 (3) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81127</link>
    <description>For customs valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, the declared invoice price remains acceptable unless the department proves undervaluation with reliable evidence of contemporaneous imports or comparable sales of like goods at higher prices. Mere quotations, price lists, offers, foreign market prices, and unproved assumptions about raw material costs were held insufficient to displace the invoice value. A separate complaint of violation of natural justice also failed because the record showed investigation, seizure, and consideration of the disputed material, and no procedural prejudice was established. The declared price was therefore upheld as the assessable value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118272" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81127</link>
      <description>For customs valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, the declared invoice price remains acceptable unless the department proves undervaluation with reliable evidence of contemporaneous imports or comparable sales of like goods at higher prices. Mere quotations, price lists, offers, foreign market prices, and unproved assumptions about raw material costs were held insufficient to displace the invoice value. A separate complaint of violation of natural justice also failed because the record showed investigation, seizure, and consideration of the disputed material, and no procedural prejudice was established. The declared price was therefore upheld as the assessable value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>