<?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 (7) TMI 471 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119819</link>
    <description>Undervaluation of imported goods was alleged where invoices of intermediary traders were used instead of the true transaction with foreign manufacturers. The documentary record, including manufacturers&#039; invoices, shipping details, seized records and foreign confirmations, indicated direct sales between the foreign manufacturers and the Indian importers, so assessable value had to be determined on the actual transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Findings of misdeclaration and personal involvement supported the duty demand and penalties, and the strong revenue case justified refusal of waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:22:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 471 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119819</link>
      <description>Undervaluation of imported goods was alleged where invoices of intermediary traders were used instead of the true transaction with foreign manufacturers. The documentary record, including manufacturers&#039; invoices, shipping details, seized records and foreign confirmations, indicated direct sales between the foreign manufacturers and the Indian importers, so assessable value had to be determined on the actual transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. Findings of misdeclaration and personal involvement supported the duty demand and penalties, and the strong revenue case justified refusal of waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>