<?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>2004 (1) TMI 433 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110637</link>
    <description>Customs valuation under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 turns on the price actually paid or payable, unless the reduction depends on a condition or consideration that cannot be valued. A contractual price adjustment supported by the loading-port inspection and invoice was accepted for the first consignment because the reduction had a discernible commercial basis and was not shown to be false or contrived. For the second consignment, a later private settlement reduced the price despite a conforming loading-port certificate, but no ascertainable basis for the cut was disclosed. The Tribunal treated that unexplained reduction as an indeterminable condition and upheld the original invoice value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:12:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 433 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110637</link>
      <description>Customs valuation under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 turns on the price actually paid or payable, unless the reduction depends on a condition or consideration that cannot be valued. A contractual price adjustment supported by the loading-port inspection and invoice was accepted for the first consignment because the reduction had a discernible commercial basis and was not shown to be false or contrived. For the second consignment, a later private settlement reduced the price despite a conforming loading-port certificate, but no ascertainable basis for the cut was disclosed. The Tribunal treated that unexplained reduction as an indeterminable condition and upheld the original invoice value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>