<?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>2016 (1) TMI 191 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270399</link>
    <description>Imported cloves could not have their assessable value enhanced by skipping the sequential valuation methods under the Customs Valuation Rules and relying instead on public ledger prices or unsupported allegations of undervaluation. The certificate of origin was not shown to be unauthentic, and there was no verified basis to doubt the declared origin. Contemporaneous import evidence had to be examined before resorting to residual valuation, but the record did not show that such evidence was first discarded or that reliable market comparison material established undervaluation. Variations in quality, size and country of origin were not properly addressed, so the enhancement was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:54:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 191 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270399</link>
      <description>Imported cloves could not have their assessable value enhanced by skipping the sequential valuation methods under the Customs Valuation Rules and relying instead on public ledger prices or unsupported allegations of undervaluation. The certificate of origin was not shown to be unauthentic, and there was no verified basis to doubt the declared origin. Contemporaneous import evidence had to be examined before resorting to residual valuation, but the record did not show that such evidence was first discarded or that reliable market comparison material established undervaluation. Variations in quality, size and country of origin were not properly addressed, so the enhancement was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>