<?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>2008 (6) TMI 419 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123958</link>
    <description>Declared value of imported goods could not be rejected merely because a relied-upon invoice showed a higher price for similar goods from the same supplier on the same date, where the imported quantity was materially larger. Quantity was a relevant factor affecting the sale consideration, and the comparison invoice was not a reliable basis to discard the declared value on those facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2012 13:48:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 419 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123958</link>
      <description>Declared value of imported goods could not be rejected merely because a relied-upon invoice showed a higher price for similar goods from the same supplier on the same date, where the imported quantity was materially larger. Quantity was a relevant factor affecting the sale consideration, and the comparison invoice was not a reliable basis to discard the declared value on those facts. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>