<?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>2009 (4) TMI 736 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126350</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value may be rejected for customs assessment only when the conditions in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 are satisfied; a mere chartered engineer&#039;s estimate based on an internet auction reference was insufficient, so the invoice value had to be accepted for duty purposes. On classification, the imported goods were found to be complete motor cycles in CKD condition rather than auto spares, and import without the requisite licence constituted an ITC violation. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, together with redemption fine and penalty, was therefore justified and reasonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:16:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 736 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126350</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value may be rejected for customs assessment only when the conditions in Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 are satisfied; a mere chartered engineer&#039;s estimate based on an internet auction reference was insufficient, so the invoice value had to be accepted for duty purposes. On classification, the imported goods were found to be complete motor cycles in CKD condition rather than auto spares, and import without the requisite licence constituted an ITC violation. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, together with redemption fine and penalty, was therefore justified and reasonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126350</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>