<?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>2020 (2) TMI 480 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392036</link>
    <description>Declared customs transaction value of imported aluminium and zinc scrap could be displaced only on cogent evidence showing the recognised exceptions to transaction-value valuation under Section 14 and Rule 4 were met. General reliance on LME prices, ISRI discount bands and a DGOV circular was insufficient without proof of additional consideration, relationship, or comparable higher-value imports. Computer printouts were not reliable absent compliance with Section 138C, and unauthenticated High Commission reports and uncorroborated statements did not prove undervaluation. With the foundational allegation failing, confiscation, duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603605" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 480 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392036</link>
      <description>Declared customs transaction value of imported aluminium and zinc scrap could be displaced only on cogent evidence showing the recognised exceptions to transaction-value valuation under Section 14 and Rule 4 were met. General reliance on LME prices, ISRI discount bands and a DGOV circular was insufficient without proof of additional consideration, relationship, or comparable higher-value imports. Computer printouts were not reliable absent compliance with Section 138C, and unauthenticated High Commission reports and uncorroborated statements did not prove undervaluation. With the foundational allegation failing, confiscation, duty demand and penalties could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>