<?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 (3) TMI 680 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114280</link>
    <description>Imported second-hand computer monitors could not be revalued by reference to domestic sale prices of similar goods or other uncorrelated material, because Rule 8(2)(i) of the Customs Valuation Rules bars reliance on Indian selling prices for goods produced in India and the relied-upon documents were not properly matched or supplied. The rejection of transaction value was therefore unsustainable and assessment had to proceed on the transaction value. Import without the required licence nevertheless attracted confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, so confiscation and penalty were sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced in line with the rejection of the enhanced valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 13:57:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 680 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114280</link>
      <description>Imported second-hand computer monitors could not be revalued by reference to domestic sale prices of similar goods or other uncorrelated material, because Rule 8(2)(i) of the Customs Valuation Rules bars reliance on Indian selling prices for goods produced in India and the relied-upon documents were not properly matched or supplied. The rejection of transaction value was therefore unsustainable and assessment had to proceed on the transaction value. Import without the required licence nevertheless attracted confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, so confiscation and penalty were sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced in line with the rejection of the enhanced valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>