<?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 (5) TMI 414 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115463</link>
    <description>Imported electronic organ pianos were analysed for customs classification and valuation. The article states that, on their size, low unit price and overall description, the goods were treated as toy musical instruments falling under Heading 9503.50 rather than musical instruments under Heading 9207.10, because toy instruments are excluded from Chapter 92. It also notes that declared invoice value could not be rejected without clear contemporaneous and identical comparable imports, so the transaction value was accepted. The overall discussion says the misclassification finding supported confiscability, while valuation was decided in favour of the importer, reducing fine and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 17:44:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 414 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115463</link>
      <description>Imported electronic organ pianos were analysed for customs classification and valuation. The article states that, on their size, low unit price and overall description, the goods were treated as toy musical instruments falling under Heading 9503.50 rather than musical instruments under Heading 9207.10, because toy instruments are excluded from Chapter 92. It also notes that declared invoice value could not be rejected without clear contemporaneous and identical comparable imports, so the transaction value was accepted. The overall discussion says the misclassification finding supported confiscability, while valuation was decided in favour of the importer, reducing fine and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115463</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>