<?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 1329 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172087</link>
    <description>Second-hand digital multifunction printers were treated as freely importable during the relevant period, so confiscation under the Customs Act could not be sustained. The declared transaction value could not be rejected merely because a Chartered Engineer&#039;s estimate showed a higher figure, since the Department had no reliable evidence of falsity, manipulation, or additional consideration; the enhanced value already accepted was left undisturbed. Redemption fine and penalty could not survive once confiscation itself lacked a lawful foundation and there was no independent proof of fraud, suppression, or undervaluation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 19:29:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392917" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1329 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172087</link>
      <description>Second-hand digital multifunction printers were treated as freely importable during the relevant period, so confiscation under the Customs Act could not be sustained. The declared transaction value could not be rejected merely because a Chartered Engineer&#039;s estimate showed a higher figure, since the Department had no reliable evidence of falsity, manipulation, or additional consideration; the enhanced value already accepted was left undisturbed. Redemption fine and penalty could not survive once confiscation itself lacked a lawful foundation and there was no independent proof of fraud, suppression, or undervaluation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>