<?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>2017 (1) TMI 1 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336921</link>
    <description>In related-party imports, transaction value may be accepted under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 where the circumstances of sale show that the relationship did not influence price, and an enquiry is required only if there is doubt about acceptability. Here, the importer supported the declared values with SVB material, commercial agreements, import and remittance records, audited accounts, and the foreign supplier&#039;s pricing declaration, while the Revenue produced no contrary evidence of price manipulation or higher comparable values. Rule 3(3)(b) was also inapplicable because the goods were custom-made and no comparable identical or similar goods data was available. The declared value was therefore accepted and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 11:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336921</link>
      <description>In related-party imports, transaction value may be accepted under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 where the circumstances of sale show that the relationship did not influence price, and an enquiry is required only if there is doubt about acceptability. Here, the importer supported the declared values with SVB material, commercial agreements, import and remittance records, audited accounts, and the foreign supplier&#039;s pricing declaration, while the Revenue produced no contrary evidence of price manipulation or higher comparable values. Rule 3(3)(b) was also inapplicable because the goods were custom-made and no comparable identical or similar goods data was available. The declared value was therefore accepted and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>