<?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>2024 (1) TMI 1128 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448729</link>
    <description>The CESTAT New Delhi held that the proper officer wrongly rejected the declared transaction value of exported readymade garments under Export Valuation Rule 8. The court found that DRI officers&#039; subjective opinion and intelligence reports alone cannot constitute &quot;reasonable doubt&quot; required for rejecting transaction values. The proper officer must have independent reason to doubt before calling for additional information. Since the appellant provided supporting documents including bank realization certificates reflecting the transaction value, the rejection was unjustified. The court set aside the order rejecting transaction value, consequential confiscation, and penalties. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2024 20:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741559" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 1128 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448729</link>
      <description>The CESTAT New Delhi held that the proper officer wrongly rejected the declared transaction value of exported readymade garments under Export Valuation Rule 8. The court found that DRI officers&#039; subjective opinion and intelligence reports alone cannot constitute &quot;reasonable doubt&quot; required for rejecting transaction values. The proper officer must have independent reason to doubt before calling for additional information. Since the appellant provided supporting documents including bank realization certificates reflecting the transaction value, the rejection was unjustified. The court set aside the order rejecting transaction value, consequential confiscation, and penalties. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>