<?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 644 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392200</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous import data supported the declared value of imported aluminium scrap, so a general LME-based benchmark for virgin metal could not be used to reject transaction value or re-determine price under the valuation rules. The Tribunal also found that retracted statements, co-noticee evidence, insurance policies, and a foreign report were insufficient to prove undervaluation without corroboration or effective cross-examination, especially where the documentary record did not show suppressed invoices or proved excess remittance. As the valuation demand failed, the related customs duty, interest, confiscation, and penalties also failed, and the additional duty objection on scrap was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=604024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 644 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392200</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous import data supported the declared value of imported aluminium scrap, so a general LME-based benchmark for virgin metal could not be used to reject transaction value or re-determine price under the valuation rules. The Tribunal also found that retracted statements, co-noticee evidence, insurance policies, and a foreign report were insufficient to prove undervaluation without corroboration or effective cross-examination, especially where the documentary record did not show suppressed invoices or proved excess remittance. As the valuation demand failed, the related customs duty, interest, confiscation, and penalties also failed, and the additional duty objection on scrap was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>