<?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 (12) TMI 365 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117161</link>
    <description>Misdeclaration of the quantity and nature of imported goods can justify rejection of the declared transaction value, adoption of comparable import data with appropriate adjustments under the Customs Valuation Rules, and confirmation of differential duty. Where the imported equipment was declared as a 6-lane system but materials supported a 12-lane installation, the lower declared value was not accepted because the alleged negotiated price was unsupported by documents and the alternative conversion theory lacked expert evidence. The established misdeclaration also rendered the goods liable to confiscation and supported penalties on the importer and its manager, although the penalties were reduced on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:12:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 365 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117161</link>
      <description>Misdeclaration of the quantity and nature of imported goods can justify rejection of the declared transaction value, adoption of comparable import data with appropriate adjustments under the Customs Valuation Rules, and confirmation of differential duty. Where the imported equipment was declared as a 6-lane system but materials supported a 12-lane installation, the lower declared value was not accepted because the alleged negotiated price was unsupported by documents and the alternative conversion theory lacked expert evidence. The established misdeclaration also rendered the goods liable to confiscation and supported penalties on the importer and its manager, although the penalties were reduced on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>