<?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 236 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4640</link>
    <description>Declared customs value could not be rejected where the relied-upon insurance papers were unreliable and the cited contemporaneous imports were not at the same commercial level. The comparables involved much smaller quantities, no proof of identical quality, and a different buyer profile, with one importer being an industrial user while the appellant was a trader importing for resale. On those facts, the contemporaneous imports could not validly support value loading under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the valuation rules. The enhancement was unsustainable, and the consequential duty demand, confiscation and penalty were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43981" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 236 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4640</link>
      <description>Declared customs value could not be rejected where the relied-upon insurance papers were unreliable and the cited contemporaneous imports were not at the same commercial level. The comparables involved much smaller quantities, no proof of identical quality, and a different buyer profile, with one importer being an industrial user while the appellant was a trader importing for resale. On those facts, the contemporaneous imports could not validly support value loading under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the valuation rules. The enhancement was unsustainable, and the consequential duty demand, confiscation and penalty were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>