<?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 (12) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90823</link>
    <description>Customs valuation of imported Vitamin Mixes turned on the primacy of declared transaction value and the comparability of contemporaneous imports. The department could not displace the invoice value without evidence of fraud, collusion or over-valuation, and mere suspicion was insufficient. The Revenue&#039;s relied-upon import data was rejected because the goods differed materially in chemical composition and active vitamin concentration, making them non-comparable for valuation. By contrast, the importers&#039; own contemporaneous import evidence was accepted because the allegation of staged or manipulated transaction was unsupported by proof. The departmental valuation therefore was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:52:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 254 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90823</link>
      <description>Customs valuation of imported Vitamin Mixes turned on the primacy of declared transaction value and the comparability of contemporaneous imports. The department could not displace the invoice value without evidence of fraud, collusion or over-valuation, and mere suspicion was insufficient. The Revenue&#039;s relied-upon import data was rejected because the goods differed materially in chemical composition and active vitamin concentration, making them non-comparable for valuation. By contrast, the importers&#039; own contemporaneous import evidence was accepted because the allegation of staged or manipulated transaction was unsupported by proof. The departmental valuation therefore was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>