<?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 (4) TMI 78 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1829</link>
    <description>In customs valuation of imported gold bars, a related-party relationship does not by itself justify rejection of the declared value. The declared price remained acceptable because the record showed no extra payment, no foreign remittance, no duty implication, and no sale transaction affecting the price. The decisive point was that the relationship was not shown to have influenced the declared value, so Revenue had no basis to disturb it and the order accepting the value was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 78 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1829</link>
      <description>In customs valuation of imported gold bars, a related-party relationship does not by itself justify rejection of the declared value. The declared price remained acceptable because the record showed no extra payment, no foreign remittance, no duty implication, and no sale transaction affecting the price. The decisive point was that the relationship was not shown to have influenced the declared value, so Revenue had no basis to disturb it and the order accepting the value was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>