<?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 (12) TMI 738 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371969</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value of imported goods must be accepted as the normal basis of customs assessment unless the Department, on cogent material, shows a statutory ground to reject it under the valuation rules. Under section 14 of the Customs Act, departure from invoice price requires reasons and supporting evidence, such as contemporaneous imports or other proof that the declared price was not the sole consideration or was otherwise unreliable. Mere suspicion or an unexplained rejection of the evidence is insufficient. On the stated facts, the assessing authority had not applied the required valuation exercise, so the enhanced assessable value was unsustainable and the declared value was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2025 15:22:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=546921" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 738 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371969</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value of imported goods must be accepted as the normal basis of customs assessment unless the Department, on cogent material, shows a statutory ground to reject it under the valuation rules. Under section 14 of the Customs Act, departure from invoice price requires reasons and supporting evidence, such as contemporaneous imports or other proof that the declared price was not the sole consideration or was otherwise unreliable. Mere suspicion or an unexplained rejection of the evidence is insufficient. On the stated facts, the assessing authority had not applied the required valuation exercise, so the enhanced assessable value was unsustainable and the declared value was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>