<?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>2022 (6) TMI 626 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423785</link>
    <description>Separate imports by different entities could not be clubbed and treated as complete electronic goods in SKD condition because the record did not establish a proved fraud, sham arrangement, or deliberate subterfuge; the clubbing theory was therefore rejected. Customs valuation also had to follow the statutory transaction-value framework, and the declared invoice value could not be discarded or redetermined on a best-judgment basis using the finished goods&#039; price without admissible evidence of undervaluation or other lawful grounds for rejection. As a result, the consequential confiscation, duty demand, and penalties were not sustained, and the assessee-side appeals succeeded while the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2022 12:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682057" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 626 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423785</link>
      <description>Separate imports by different entities could not be clubbed and treated as complete electronic goods in SKD condition because the record did not establish a proved fraud, sham arrangement, or deliberate subterfuge; the clubbing theory was therefore rejected. Customs valuation also had to follow the statutory transaction-value framework, and the declared invoice value could not be discarded or redetermined on a best-judgment basis using the finished goods&#039; price without admissible evidence of undervaluation or other lawful grounds for rejection. As a result, the consequential confiscation, duty demand, and penalties were not sustained, and the assessee-side appeals succeeded while the Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>