<?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>2018 (7) TMI 1802 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364494</link>
    <description>Declared value of imported dry dates could not be enhanced on the basis of an SIIB alert circular, website prices, or a refund valuation adopted under the special additional duty notification, because no contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices were shown. The transaction value was not first rejected in the manner required by Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and redetermination under Rule 7 was also unsupported for want of comparable import evidence or reliable wholesale price trends. The enhancement was therefore unsustainable and the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:45:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1802 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364494</link>
      <description>Declared value of imported dry dates could not be enhanced on the basis of an SIIB alert circular, website prices, or a refund valuation adopted under the special additional duty notification, because no contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices were shown. The transaction value was not first rejected in the manner required by Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and redetermination under Rule 7 was also unsupported for want of comparable import evidence or reliable wholesale price trends. The enhancement was therefore unsustainable and the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>