<?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 677 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115924</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value for imported second-hand machinery must be accepted under the Customs valuation framework unless it is first rejected on legally sustainable grounds. Here, the invoice and purchase order supported the declared value, while the relied-upon contemporaneous import involved different age and circumstances. Because the adjudicating authority gave no valid reason to reject the declared value, enhancement through contemporaneous import data was not permissible. Once the declared value was accepted, there was no basis for alleging excess value or misdeclaration, and the confiscation and penalty orders could not stand. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:13:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 677 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115924</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value for imported second-hand machinery must be accepted under the Customs valuation framework unless it is first rejected on legally sustainable grounds. Here, the invoice and purchase order supported the declared value, while the relied-upon contemporaneous import involved different age and circumstances. Because the adjudicating authority gave no valid reason to reject the declared value, enhancement through contemporaneous import data was not permissible. Once the declared value was accepted, there was no basis for alleging excess value or misdeclaration, and the confiscation and penalty orders could not stand. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appeal allowed.</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=115924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>