<?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>2007 (6) TMI 22 - CESTAT,CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1730</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value may be rejected under the Customs Valuation Rules where the imported price is shown to be a specially low introductory or distributor price that does not reflect the ordinary competitive price in international trade. On the facts, contemporaneous materials, manufacturer data, supplier communications and valuation references supported doubt about the truth and accuracy of the declared value, so reassessment under the residual method was sustained when earlier valuation rules could not be applied. Penalty on the Customs House Agent could not be upheld without evidence of conscious knowledge of the correct value or intentional abetment; mere filing of import documents on the importer&#039;s instructions was insufficient. The valuation-based confiscation and importer&#039;s penalty were maintained, but the agent&#039;s penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (6) TMI 22 - CESTAT,CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1730</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value may be rejected under the Customs Valuation Rules where the imported price is shown to be a specially low introductory or distributor price that does not reflect the ordinary competitive price in international trade. On the facts, contemporaneous materials, manufacturer data, supplier communications and valuation references supported doubt about the truth and accuracy of the declared value, so reassessment under the residual method was sustained when earlier valuation rules could not be applied. Penalty on the Customs House Agent could not be upheld without evidence of conscious knowledge of the correct value or intentional abetment; mere filing of import documents on the importer&#039;s instructions was insufficient. The valuation-based confiscation and importer&#039;s penalty were maintained, but the agent&#039;s penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1730</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>