<?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 467 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110684</link>
    <description>Shareholding by a foreign supplier in an importer, without proof that the statutory ownership or control test was met, does not by itself establish related-person status for customs valuation. The parties were found to have negotiated on commercial terms, so the relationship objection failed. Where currency depreciation led to a genuine renegotiation of price before clearance, and the revised invoice was supported by bank and supplier correspondence, the original invoice value could not be rejected merely because it differed from the first agreement. The renegotiated invoice price was accepted as the transaction value for assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:54:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147700" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 467 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110684</link>
      <description>Shareholding by a foreign supplier in an importer, without proof that the statutory ownership or control test was met, does not by itself establish related-person status for customs valuation. The parties were found to have negotiated on commercial terms, so the relationship objection failed. Where currency depreciation led to a genuine renegotiation of price before clearance, and the revised invoice was supported by bank and supplier correspondence, the original invoice value could not be rejected merely because it differed from the first agreement. The renegotiated invoice price was accepted as the transaction value for assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>