<?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 (9) TMI 422 - CESTAT BANGLORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442800</link>
    <description>Post-clearance amendment of a Bill of Entry and imported value under section 149 of the Customs Act is permissible only on the basis of documentary evidence already in existence at the time of import, and not on revised purchase orders or invoices created later. Since the revised documents were post-clearance instruments and the original transaction could not be verified through contemporaneous evidence, the requested value alteration was rejected. Section 154 was also inapplicable because it covers only clerical, arithmetical, or accidental mistakes, and the dispute concerned a substantive reassessment of declared value rather than a correction slip. The declared customs value therefore remained unchanged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2024 14:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 422 - CESTAT BANGLORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442800</link>
      <description>Post-clearance amendment of a Bill of Entry and imported value under section 149 of the Customs Act is permissible only on the basis of documentary evidence already in existence at the time of import, and not on revised purchase orders or invoices created later. Since the revised documents were post-clearance instruments and the original transaction could not be verified through contemporaneous evidence, the requested value alteration was rejected. Section 154 was also inapplicable because it covers only clerical, arithmetical, or accidental mistakes, and the dispute concerned a substantive reassessment of declared value rather than a correction slip. The declared customs value therefore remained unchanged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442800</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>