<?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>1996 (2) TMI 458 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105036</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Customs Act requires customs authorities first to test whether the declared transaction value of imported goods is acceptable; Rule 8 depreciation-based valuation may be used only after a finding that the declared value is not acceptable. The absence of comparable imports did not by itself justify automatic resort to Rule 8. On the facts, the wide divergence between declared and depreciated values for some machinery items cast doubt on their genuineness, so Rule 8 applied to those items; for the remaining items, the variation was not substantial enough to discredit the declared values, so the transaction value had to be accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 12:22:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 458 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105036</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Customs Act requires customs authorities first to test whether the declared transaction value of imported goods is acceptable; Rule 8 depreciation-based valuation may be used only after a finding that the declared value is not acceptable. The absence of comparable imports did not by itself justify automatic resort to Rule 8. On the facts, the wide divergence between declared and depreciated values for some machinery items cast doubt on their genuineness, so Rule 8 applied to those items; for the remaining items, the variation was not substantial enough to discredit the declared values, so the transaction value had to be accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>