<?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 (6) TMI 390 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119783</link>
    <description>Where imported goods are sold under a bona fide pre-agreed pricing formula, the contractual final price computed from actual lead content and the agreed reference price may be accepted as the transaction value for customs valuation. The price was not rejected merely because it was finalised after importation, as no contemporaneous comparable imports or evidence of manipulation were shown, and substituting only one valuation factor was held impermissible. The contractually provided deduction for despatch money was also allowed because it reflected actual payment terms. The refund order was sustained, subject to examination of unjust enrichment before disbursement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:23:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 390 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119783</link>
      <description>Where imported goods are sold under a bona fide pre-agreed pricing formula, the contractual final price computed from actual lead content and the agreed reference price may be accepted as the transaction value for customs valuation. The price was not rejected merely because it was finalised after importation, as no contemporaneous comparable imports or evidence of manipulation were shown, and substituting only one valuation factor was held impermissible. The contractually provided deduction for despatch money was also allowed because it reflected actual payment terms. The refund order was sustained, subject to examination of unjust enrichment before disbursement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>