<?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>Classification of imported small electronic organ pianos depended on their true commercial character, size, low unit price and tariff coverage. Toy musical instruments are excluded from Chapter 92 and specifically covered under Item 9503.50; the goods were therefore treated as toy pianos rather than musical instruments under Heading 9207.10, restoring confiscability for misclassification. Customs valuation required cogent evidence before rejecting the declared transaction value. As the cited comparable import was not established as contemporaneous or identical, the invoice value remained acceptable and enhancement failed. Classification findings stood, while valuation findings reduced the 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>Classification of imported small electronic organ pianos depended on their true commercial character, size, low unit price and tariff coverage. Toy musical instruments are excluded from Chapter 92 and specifically covered under Item 9503.50; the goods were therefore treated as toy pianos rather than musical instruments under Heading 9207.10, restoring confiscability for misclassification. Customs valuation required cogent evidence before rejecting the declared transaction value. As the cited comparable import was not established as contemporaneous or identical, the invoice value remained acceptable and enhancement failed. Classification findings stood, while valuation findings reduced the 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>