<?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 1923 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298940</link>
    <description>Customs valuation under the 2007 Rules permits rejection of declared value only through Rule 12, requiring disclosure of grounds, further inquiry if needed, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before final decision. If rejection follows, valuation must then move sequentially under Rules 4 to 9. The authority failed to follow that process, relied on foreign-language documents without authenticated translations, and extended suspicion from two consignments to the remaining bills of entry through an impermissible sampling approach. The HC held that this violated the valuation rules and natural justice, and set aside the order while remitting the matter for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2021 17:23:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1923 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298940</link>
      <description>Customs valuation under the 2007 Rules permits rejection of declared value only through Rule 12, requiring disclosure of grounds, further inquiry if needed, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before final decision. If rejection follows, valuation must then move sequentially under Rules 4 to 9. The authority failed to follow that process, relied on foreign-language documents without authenticated translations, and extended suspicion from two consignments to the remaining bills of entry through an impermissible sampling approach. The HC held that this violated the valuation rules and natural justice, and set aside the order while remitting the matter for fresh consideration.</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=298940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>