<?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>1999 (9) TMI 191 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92251</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value of imported copper dross could be rejected where test results showed copper content far above the declared percentage. However, copper dross and copper ingots are distinct commodities, so valuation could not be fixed by simply treating the dross as higher-purity ingots. The proper sequence under the valuation rules had to be applied, and in the absence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods, final valuation could not be conclusively determined on the available material. Rejection of the declared value was upheld, but the adopted valuation method was rejected and the value had to be redetermined afresh under the rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:00:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 191 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92251</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value of imported copper dross could be rejected where test results showed copper content far above the declared percentage. However, copper dross and copper ingots are distinct commodities, so valuation could not be fixed by simply treating the dross as higher-purity ingots. The proper sequence under the valuation rules had to be applied, and in the absence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods, final valuation could not be conclusively determined on the available material. Rejection of the declared value was upheld, but the adopted valuation method was rejected and the value had to be redetermined afresh under the rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>