<?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>2008 (1) TMI 192 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4441</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value in customs valuation cannot be rejected merely on suspicion; it must be backed by material evidence and by recorded circumstances satisfying Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Where the supplier&#039;s invoice is genuine on the record, payment is made through proper banking channels, and no facts are shown to disbelieve the invoice or remittance, enhancement of value is not justified. The commentary also notes that market fluctuation in computer items, without more, does not support rejection of the declared price. The declared value was therefore required to be accepted and the enhanced valuation set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 192 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4441</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value in customs valuation cannot be rejected merely on suspicion; it must be backed by material evidence and by recorded circumstances satisfying Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. Where the supplier&#039;s invoice is genuine on the record, payment is made through proper banking channels, and no facts are shown to disbelieve the invoice or remittance, enhancement of value is not justified. The commentary also notes that market fluctuation in computer items, without more, does not support rejection of the declared price. The declared value was therefore required to be accepted and the enhanced valuation set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>