<?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>2006 (1) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117381</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value of imported goods may be rejected where investigation-based information from foreign customs authorities shows that the invoices are false and reflect only a fraction of the actual CIF value. The report here verified that the invoiced amounts were understated, that the invoices were issued at the importer&#039;s request, and that payment was made partly through DP terms with the balance remitted separately. On those facts, the declared price was not accepted as the true transaction value, and case law concerning mere photocopies of export documents was treated as inapplicable because the present matter rested on authenticated foreign customs evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:45:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117381</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value of imported goods may be rejected where investigation-based information from foreign customs authorities shows that the invoices are false and reflect only a fraction of the actual CIF value. The report here verified that the invoiced amounts were understated, that the invoices were issued at the importer&#039;s request, and that payment was made partly through DP terms with the balance remitted separately. On those facts, the declared price was not accepted as the true transaction value, and case law concerning mere photocopies of export documents was treated as inapplicable because the present matter rested on authenticated foreign customs evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>