<?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 (10) TMI 1203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238748</link>
    <description>Restricted imported goods cannot be treated as freely importable merely because Customs artificially enhances their declared value. Where import restrictions depend on value, the declared value remains the relevant basis unless its rejection is sustainable; enhancement does not change the goods&#039; intrinsic character or cure the absence of a required licence. The declared value was restored and the valuation enhancement was set aside. However, import without a valid licence continued to breach the restriction, justifying redemption fine and penalty. Verification of prior deposits was directed for any consequential refund admissible in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238748</link>
      <description>Restricted imported goods cannot be treated as freely importable merely because Customs artificially enhances their declared value. Where import restrictions depend on value, the declared value remains the relevant basis unless its rejection is sustainable; enhancement does not change the goods&#039; intrinsic character or cure the absence of a required licence. The declared value was restored and the valuation enhancement was set aside. However, import without a valid licence continued to breach the restriction, justifying redemption fine and penalty. Verification of prior deposits was directed for any consequential refund admissible in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>