<?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>2014 (5) TMI 676 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247749</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value of imported old and used photocopier machines cannot be rejected or enhanced merely on the basis of Chartered Engineer certificates unless there is tangible evidence of undervaluation, such as extra consideration or contemporaneous material showing the invoice value to be incorrect. The text also notes conflicting views on confiscation, redemption fine and penalty: one view applied earlier Tribunal precedent to reduce them to 10% and 5% respectively, while the other held that such reduction is not a fixed benchmark and that misdeclaration and unlicensed import justified the adjudication consequences. The document records a difference of opinion on both valuation and consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 May 2014 19:45:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 676 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247749</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value of imported old and used photocopier machines cannot be rejected or enhanced merely on the basis of Chartered Engineer certificates unless there is tangible evidence of undervaluation, such as extra consideration or contemporaneous material showing the invoice value to be incorrect. The text also notes conflicting views on confiscation, redemption fine and penalty: one view applied earlier Tribunal precedent to reduce them to 10% and 5% respectively, while the other held that such reduction is not a fixed benchmark and that misdeclaration and unlicensed import justified the adjudication consequences. The document records a difference of opinion on both valuation and consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>