<?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 (9) TMI 334 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115605</link>
    <description>Related-party import valuation under the Customs Valuation Rules requires the importer to show that the relationship did not influence the declared price, or that the declared value closely approximates a valid test value. Acceptance depends on surrounding circumstances, pricing practice, and proof that the relationship did not affect value under Rule 4(3)(a), or on comparison with a benchmark value under Rule 4(3)(b). On the evidence, the claimed discount was unsupported by proof of additional responsibilities, risk transfer, cost recovery, or profit structure, and the declared value did not closely match the price charged to unrelated buyers. The declared transaction value was therefore rejected and comparable unrelated-sale pricing was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 13:28:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 334 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115605</link>
      <description>Related-party import valuation under the Customs Valuation Rules requires the importer to show that the relationship did not influence the declared price, or that the declared value closely approximates a valid test value. Acceptance depends on surrounding circumstances, pricing practice, and proof that the relationship did not affect value under Rule 4(3)(a), or on comparison with a benchmark value under Rule 4(3)(b). On the evidence, the claimed discount was unsupported by proof of additional responsibilities, risk transfer, cost recovery, or profit structure, and the declared value did not closely match the price charged to unrelated buyers. The declared transaction value was therefore rejected and comparable unrelated-sale pricing was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>