<?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>2023 (8) TMI 558 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441579</link>
    <description>A certificate of origin issued by the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry, together with contemporaneous Malaysian markings on the batteries, was not displaced by the department&#039;s material. An incomplete overseas enquiry based on an assumed manufacturer identity and chat records lacking compliance with electronic evidence requirements were insufficient to prove Chinese origin, so the alleged misdeclaration and DGFT notification breach failed. The enhancement of retail sale price also lacked a lawful foundation, as the declared value rejection and further escalation were unsupported by the valuation rules and were internally inconsistent. The appellate order in favour of the importers was therefore affirmed and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 558 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441579</link>
      <description>A certificate of origin issued by the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry, together with contemporaneous Malaysian markings on the batteries, was not displaced by the department&#039;s material. An incomplete overseas enquiry based on an assumed manufacturer identity and chat records lacking compliance with electronic evidence requirements were insufficient to prove Chinese origin, so the alleged misdeclaration and DGFT notification breach failed. The enhancement of retail sale price also lacked a lawful foundation, as the declared value rejection and further escalation were unsupported by the valuation rules and were internally inconsistent. The appellate order in favour of the importers was therefore affirmed and the revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441579</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>