<?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>2000 (4) TMI 699 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98927</link>
    <description>In customs valuation disputes, the Revenue must prove under-valuation with cogent evidence before rejecting the declared transaction value and resorting to Rule 8 valuation. Mere suspicion, however strong, is insufficient, and in the absence of contemporaneous imports at higher values the declared value cannot be displaced. The record contained no such evidence, so the valuation challenge failed and the assessee&#039;s declared value was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:12:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 699 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98927</link>
      <description>In customs valuation disputes, the Revenue must prove under-valuation with cogent evidence before rejecting the declared transaction value and resorting to Rule 8 valuation. Mere suspicion, however strong, is insufficient, and in the absence of contemporaneous imports at higher values the declared value cannot be displaced. The record contained no such evidence, so the valuation challenge failed and the assessee&#039;s declared value was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>