<?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 (11) TMI 284 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93056</link>
    <description>Under customs valuation rules, the declared invoice value of imported ball bearings must be accepted unless the revenue shows it is unacceptable through reliable evidence of identical or similar goods imported proximate in time, from the same source, and in comparable quantities. Manufacturer price lists and quotations were insufficient because they did not clearly identify the source, applicability period, manufacturer identity, or a proper basis for comparison with the imported goods. As contemporaneous imports at the enhanced values were not proved, the burden of establishing undervaluation was not discharged and resort to a later valuation method was not justified. The enhancement of value was therefore not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 10:20:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 284 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93056</link>
      <description>Under customs valuation rules, the declared invoice value of imported ball bearings must be accepted unless the revenue shows it is unacceptable through reliable evidence of identical or similar goods imported proximate in time, from the same source, and in comparable quantities. Manufacturer price lists and quotations were insufficient because they did not clearly identify the source, applicability period, manufacturer identity, or a proper basis for comparison with the imported goods. As contemporaneous imports at the enhanced values were not proved, the burden of establishing undervaluation was not discharged and resort to a later valuation method was not justified. The enhancement of value was therefore not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>