<?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>2015 (12) TMI 404 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269100</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value remained the starting point for customs valuation because the invoice price was supported by the supply arrangement and acceptance letter, and no extra consideration was shown to have passed between buyer and supplier. A later increase in quantity at a concessional price was treated as a normal commercial adjustment, not a basis to reject the declared value. The valuation rules required sequential application only if the prescribed grounds for rejection were established; here, contemporaneous imports in the relevant period showed lower comparable values and were not disproved by the department. Published journal prices and a later high-sea-sale price could not override actual contemporaneous import prices, so the declared value was accepted and Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=408050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 404 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269100</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value remained the starting point for customs valuation because the invoice price was supported by the supply arrangement and acceptance letter, and no extra consideration was shown to have passed between buyer and supplier. A later increase in quantity at a concessional price was treated as a normal commercial adjustment, not a basis to reject the declared value. The valuation rules required sequential application only if the prescribed grounds for rejection were established; here, contemporaneous imports in the relevant period showed lower comparable values and were not disproved by the department. Published journal prices and a later high-sea-sale price could not override actual contemporaneous import prices, so the declared value was accepted and Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>