<?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 (8) TMI 775 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236483</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal due to insufficient evidence to prove undervaluation or mis-declaration by the importers. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying quality and price differences claimed by the importers and the lack of proof of any additional remittance to the supplier abroad.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:07:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 775 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236483</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal due to insufficient evidence to prove undervaluation or mis-declaration by the importers. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying quality and price differences claimed by the importers and the lack of proof of any additional remittance to the supplier abroad.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>