<?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 (7) TMI 734 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99105</link>
    <description>Enhancement of the declared value of imported floppy disk drives was examined against comparable imports and customs valuation rules. The goods were treated as identical goods from the same foreign manufacturer, and the enhancement relied on another invoice after the authority stated that no contemporaneous imports were available to apply the earlier valuation rules and proceeded under Rule 8. An earlier matter involving identical goods from the same manufacturer had already resulted in a comparable enhancement and was affirmed. On the facts, the difference of about 10% between the declared and enhanced values was found insufficient to sustain under-valuation, so the enhancement was held unsustainable and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:46:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 734 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99105</link>
      <description>Enhancement of the declared value of imported floppy disk drives was examined against comparable imports and customs valuation rules. The goods were treated as identical goods from the same foreign manufacturer, and the enhancement relied on another invoice after the authority stated that no contemporaneous imports were available to apply the earlier valuation rules and proceeded under Rule 8. An earlier matter involving identical goods from the same manufacturer had already resulted in a comparable enhancement and was affirmed. On the facts, the difference of about 10% between the declared and enhanced values was found insufficient to sustain under-valuation, so the enhancement was held unsustainable and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>