<?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>1998 (8) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89178</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Customs&#039; decision to enhance the valuation of imported Dicyandiamide (DCDA) based on evidence of similar imports at a higher price. The Commissioner&#039;s order confiscating the goods, allowing redemption, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lacs, and increasing the value to US $ 1700 P.M.T. was partially upheld, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 2.00 lacs due to factors like extra payment, demurrage, and penalty imposition. The sufficiency of evidence for valuation enhancement, relationship between supplier and buyer, and the importance of identical goods in valuation determination were key considerations in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:24:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89178</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Customs&#039; decision to enhance the valuation of imported Dicyandiamide (DCDA) based on evidence of similar imports at a higher price. The Commissioner&#039;s order confiscating the goods, allowing redemption, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lacs, and increasing the value to US $ 1700 P.M.T. was partially upheld, with the penalty reduced to Rs. 2.00 lacs due to factors like extra payment, demurrage, and penalty imposition. The sufficiency of evidence for valuation enhancement, relationship between supplier and buyer, and the importance of identical goods in valuation determination were key considerations in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>