<?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 (7) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88205</link>
    <description>Customs valuation cannot be upheld on the basis of a proforma invoice for goods that are materially different from the declared imports. The declared documents showed Singapore origin, a Singapore supplier, shipment from Singapore and pricing in Singapore dollars, while the relied-upon invoice related to Japanese-origin goods from a different supplier, shipped from Japan, priced in yen and issued four months later. Similarity of brand name alone was insufficient to establish comparability or common manufacture. On that basis, rejection of the declared value and the consequential duty demand were held unsustainable, and the valuation and demand orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:07:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88205</link>
      <description>Customs valuation cannot be upheld on the basis of a proforma invoice for goods that are materially different from the declared imports. The declared documents showed Singapore origin, a Singapore supplier, shipment from Singapore and pricing in Singapore dollars, while the relied-upon invoice related to Japanese-origin goods from a different supplier, shipped from Japan, priced in yen and issued four months later. Similarity of brand name alone was insufficient to establish comparability or common manufacture. On that basis, rejection of the declared value and the consequential duty demand were held unsustainable, and the valuation and demand orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>