<?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>2007 (7) TMI 505 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122658</link>
    <description>Declared customs value may be rejected where contemporaneous comparable imports and surrounding evidence show gross undervaluation, and enhancement under the Customs Valuation Rules is then justified for the anamorphic lenses. By contrast, value enhancement for the Jimmy Jib cranes and the Angenieux HR 25-250 mm lens was not sustained because the record lacked item-specific evidentiary support of the same strength. Confiscability was maintained, but redemption fine and penalties were reduced in view of the circumstances and the period the goods remained with the department; duty confirmation on the upheld enhancement was retained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:07:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 505 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122658</link>
      <description>Declared customs value may be rejected where contemporaneous comparable imports and surrounding evidence show gross undervaluation, and enhancement under the Customs Valuation Rules is then justified for the anamorphic lenses. By contrast, value enhancement for the Jimmy Jib cranes and the Angenieux HR 25-250 mm lens was not sustained because the record lacked item-specific evidentiary support of the same strength. Confiscability was maintained, but redemption fine and penalties were reduced in view of the circumstances and the period the goods remained with the department; duty confirmation on the upheld enhancement was retained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>