<?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 796 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236504</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value for imported second hand machinery cannot be rejected on the basis of remote, non-contemporaneous or otherwise unreliable comparisons unless the department produces cogent evidence of undervaluation. Here, the imports were supported by purchase documents, letter of credit, pre-shipment inspection and a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, while the department relied mainly on another party&#039;s decade-old imports, an in-house expert report and indicative component prices, none of which established make, model, condition, year of manufacture or residual life with dependable certainty. In the absence of contemporaneous higher-priced imports or any valid ground to displace the invoice price, resort to the residual valuation rule was not justified and the demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:39:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 796 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236504</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value for imported second hand machinery cannot be rejected on the basis of remote, non-contemporaneous or otherwise unreliable comparisons unless the department produces cogent evidence of undervaluation. Here, the imports were supported by purchase documents, letter of credit, pre-shipment inspection and a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate, while the department relied mainly on another party&#039;s decade-old imports, an in-house expert report and indicative component prices, none of which established make, model, condition, year of manufacture or residual life with dependable certainty. In the absence of contemporaneous higher-priced imports or any valid ground to displace the invoice price, resort to the residual valuation rule was not justified and the demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>