<?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 857 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269553</link>
    <description>An assessable value based on undisclosed market enquiry and backward calculation from retail price was found unsustainable because the enquiry basis was not properly disclosed, the method lacked evidentiary support, and no adequate reason was shown to depart from transaction value or the customs valuation hierarchy for similar or identical goods. The denial of Notification No. 149/95 was upheld because the importer admitted it was not an actual user, and the record supported that factual finding. The commentary notes that the duty demand founded on the enhanced valuation could not stand, while the exemption denial remained valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 11:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=409314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 857 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269553</link>
      <description>An assessable value based on undisclosed market enquiry and backward calculation from retail price was found unsustainable because the enquiry basis was not properly disclosed, the method lacked evidentiary support, and no adequate reason was shown to depart from transaction value or the customs valuation hierarchy for similar or identical goods. The denial of Notification No. 149/95 was upheld because the importer admitted it was not an actual user, and the record supported that factual finding. The commentary notes that the duty demand founded on the enhanced valuation could not stand, while the exemption denial remained valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>