<?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 (4) TMI 384 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119556</link>
    <description>Imported motor cycle parts could not be revalued on the basis of a local trader&#039;s domestic price note, because the Department produced no contemporaneous evidence to reject the declared transaction value under the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. The importer&#039;s catalogue prices also supported the declared value, so the attempted enhancement failed. The valuation exercise was further undermined because the trader whose statement supported the enhancement was not made available for cross-examination, breaching natural justice. Penalty was otherwise maintainable for admitted misdeclaration, but only one penalty could stand against a proprietary concern and its proprietor for the same default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:39:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 384 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119556</link>
      <description>Imported motor cycle parts could not be revalued on the basis of a local trader&#039;s domestic price note, because the Department produced no contemporaneous evidence to reject the declared transaction value under the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules. The importer&#039;s catalogue prices also supported the declared value, so the attempted enhancement failed. The valuation exercise was further undermined because the trader whose statement supported the enhancement was not made available for cross-examination, breaching natural justice. Penalty was otherwise maintainable for admitted misdeclaration, but only one penalty could stand against a proprietary concern and its proprietor for the same default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>