<?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 (4) TMI 1074 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179804</link>
    <description>The declared value was liable to rejection, but enhancement under the Customs Valuation Rules could not be sustained solely on the basis of a DRI letter without comparison to contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. The penalty was also considered excessive, given the delay in adjudication, the resulting demurrage and shipping charges, and the importer&#039;s first-time status. The penalty was therefore liable to be reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 12:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1074 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179804</link>
      <description>The declared value was liable to rejection, but enhancement under the Customs Valuation Rules could not be sustained solely on the basis of a DRI letter without comparison to contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods. The penalty was also considered excessive, given the delay in adjudication, the resulting demurrage and shipping charges, and the importer&#039;s first-time status. The penalty was therefore liable to be reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>