<?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 (3) TMI 1246 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750749</link>
    <description>Misdeclaration of imported textile goods was not established where the expert&#039;s opinion on brushing was weakened in cross-examination and the docks examination described the goods as stock lot polyester knitted fabrics, leaving no reliable factual basis for the charge. Enhancement of assessable value was also unsustainable because the show cause notice relied on market enquiry, while the adjudication instead used undisclosed NIDB data without supplying its basis to the importer; the resulting redetermination lacked proper legal and evidentiary foundation, including for Rule 8 valuation. Accordingly, the demand, interest, redemption fine, and penalties could not be sustained and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2024 07:46:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1246 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750749</link>
      <description>Misdeclaration of imported textile goods was not established where the expert&#039;s opinion on brushing was weakened in cross-examination and the docks examination described the goods as stock lot polyester knitted fabrics, leaving no reliable factual basis for the charge. Enhancement of assessable value was also unsustainable because the show cause notice relied on market enquiry, while the adjudication instead used undisclosed NIDB data without supplying its basis to the importer; the resulting redetermination lacked proper legal and evidentiary foundation, including for Rule 8 valuation. Accordingly, the demand, interest, redemption fine, and penalties could not be sustained and the impugned orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>