<?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>2013 (5) TMI 351 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233766</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the incorrect application of Rule 10(1)(c) for enhancing the transaction value based on the relationship between related parties. The decision stressed the importance of evidence and justification when rejecting declared values and enhancing transaction values under the Customs Valuation Rules 2007.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2015 17:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196180" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 351 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233766</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the incorrect application of Rule 10(1)(c) for enhancing the transaction value based on the relationship between related parties. The decision stressed the importance of evidence and justification when rejecting declared values and enhancing transaction values under the Customs Valuation Rules 2007.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>