<?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 (9) TMI 92 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236659</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value for imported Scotch whisky concentrate could not be rejected merely because contemporaneous imports showed higher prices. The importer&#039;s statements and supplier correspondence supported the explanation that the lower price reflected negotiated commercial terms, and the record showed no extra payment or other evidence that the declared price was not the true price actually paid or payable. Mere price variation in comparable imports was insufficient to prove undervaluation. On that basis, rejection of the transaction value was unsustainable, and the duty demand and penalties could not be upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Sep 2013 11:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 92 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236659</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value for imported Scotch whisky concentrate could not be rejected merely because contemporaneous imports showed higher prices. The importer&#039;s statements and supplier correspondence supported the explanation that the lower price reflected negotiated commercial terms, and the record showed no extra payment or other evidence that the declared price was not the true price actually paid or payable. Mere price variation in comparable imports was insufficient to prove undervaluation. On that basis, rejection of the transaction value was unsustainable, and the duty demand and penalties could not be upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>