<?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>2005 (2) TMI 645 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115301</link>
    <description>Customs transaction value for imported scrap cannot be rejected merely because higher prices were recorded for other imports through the same port. The declared value may be discarded only on valid grounds, and the Revenue must show that the benchmark imports are identical or similar before relying on Customs data. Loading goods without reference to quantity, place and time of import was contrary to the statutory valuation scheme, so enhancement of value was not justified and the declared transaction value was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:46:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 645 - CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115301</link>
      <description>Customs transaction value for imported scrap cannot be rejected merely because higher prices were recorded for other imports through the same port. The declared value may be discarded only on valid grounds, and the Revenue must show that the benchmark imports are identical or similar before relying on Customs data. Loading goods without reference to quantity, place and time of import was contrary to the statutory valuation scheme, so enhancement of value was not justified and the declared transaction value was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>