<?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 452 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123993</link>
    <description>Customs valuation may be revisited before release when fresh material emerges and the goods remain in departmental custody, so reassessment without recourse to Section 129D of the Customs Act is permissible. However, any further enhancement of assessable value must rest on legally acceptable evidence such as contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods; a domestic market quotation is not a sufficient basis for additional loading. Confiscation for alleged breaches of country-of-origin and trademark or marking requirements was not justified on the recorded facts, and the related redemption fine and penalty could not survive. The valuation was sustained only to the extent supported by contemporaneous import data.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:12:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 452 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123993</link>
      <description>Customs valuation may be revisited before release when fresh material emerges and the goods remain in departmental custody, so reassessment without recourse to Section 129D of the Customs Act is permissible. However, any further enhancement of assessable value must rest on legally acceptable evidence such as contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods; a domestic market quotation is not a sufficient basis for additional loading. Confiscation for alleged breaches of country-of-origin and trademark or marking requirements was not justified on the recorded facts, and the related redemption fine and penalty could not survive. The valuation was sustained only to the extent supported by contemporaneous import data.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123993</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>