<?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>1996 (8) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85737</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Collector&#039;s decision to enhance the assessable value of imported Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE). The Tribunal accepted the invoice value of US $680 per Metric Tonne for Customs duty assessment, rejecting the Collector&#039;s valuation of US $780 per Metric Tonne. The Tribunal found the contracts to be genuine and emphasized the importance of honoring contracted prices in fluctuating markets when supported by evidence of genuineness. The allegations of misdeclaration and under-invoicing were dismissed, and the Tribunal supported the appellants&#039; position based on previous similar case precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 17:53:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85737</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Collector&#039;s decision to enhance the assessable value of imported Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE). The Tribunal accepted the invoice value of US $680 per Metric Tonne for Customs duty assessment, rejecting the Collector&#039;s valuation of US $780 per Metric Tonne. The Tribunal found the contracts to be genuine and emphasized the importance of honoring contracted prices in fluctuating markets when supported by evidence of genuineness. The allegations of misdeclaration and under-invoicing were dismissed, and the Tribunal supported the appellants&#039; position based on previous similar case precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>