<?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 (9) TMI 61 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE(APPEAL)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2574</link>
    <description>Imported car waxes and allied goods were not liable to confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where the declaration with part numbers was accurate, the import documents showed no suppression of facts, and the certificate of origin identified the manufacturing source. Rejection of transaction value was found unsustainable because there was no proper basis to invoke Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and the goods were excluded from the relevant MRP-based assessment notification. Past assessments of similar imports also supported valuation on transaction value rather than MRP, so the alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 61 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE(APPEAL)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2574</link>
      <description>Imported car waxes and allied goods were not liable to confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where the declaration with part numbers was accurate, the import documents showed no suppression of facts, and the certificate of origin identified the manufacturing source. Rejection of transaction value was found unsustainable because there was no proper basis to invoke Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and the goods were excluded from the relevant MRP-based assessment notification. Past assessments of similar imports also supported valuation on transaction value rather than MRP, so the alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>