<?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>2019 (2) TMI 319 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374692</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value of imported HR coils must ordinarily be accepted under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and rejection is permitted only in the manner contemplated by rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. A comparison with contemporaneous imports is valid only where identical or similar goods are shown on record to be commercially comparable in a comparable transaction. On the facts, HR steel plates were not shown to be commercially interchangeable with HR coils or to perform the same function, so they could not be treated as similar goods for valuation. No additional consideration beyond the declared price was established, and the proposed enhancement of assessable value was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 13:33:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=556831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 319 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374692</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value of imported HR coils must ordinarily be accepted under section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and rejection is permitted only in the manner contemplated by rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. A comparison with contemporaneous imports is valid only where identical or similar goods are shown on record to be commercially comparable in a comparable transaction. On the facts, HR steel plates were not shown to be commercially interchangeable with HR coils or to perform the same function, so they could not be treated as similar goods for valuation. No additional consideration beyond the declared price was established, and the proposed enhancement of assessable value was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>