<?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 (5) TMI 367 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111801</link>
    <description>A proforma invoice, being only an offer price, cannot by itself displace declared transaction value or serve as contemporaneous import price without material showing the invoice value is unreliable. The higher revaluation adopted below was therefore unsustainable. The exemption under Notification No. 45/94-Cus. for specified leather-industry goods could not be denied merely because the importer was a trader, since the notification did not impose an actual-user condition for the goods concerned. The exclusion of exemption on an implied actual-user requirement was unjustified, and the impugned order was held unsustainable with consequential relief to the importer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:49:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 367 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111801</link>
      <description>A proforma invoice, being only an offer price, cannot by itself displace declared transaction value or serve as contemporaneous import price without material showing the invoice value is unreliable. The higher revaluation adopted below was therefore unsustainable. The exemption under Notification No. 45/94-Cus. for specified leather-industry goods could not be denied merely because the importer was a trader, since the notification did not impose an actual-user condition for the goods concerned. The exclusion of exemption on an implied actual-user requirement was unjustified, and the impugned order was held unsustainable with consequential relief to the importer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>