<?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 (5) TMI 1155 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753102</link>
    <description>An export consignment declared and treated as iron ore fines could not be reclassified as iron ore lumps merely because some particles exceeded 10 mm, where the shipment was tested as a whole and the relevant standards allowed incidental larger particles within fines; the duty demand based on such artificial segregation was unsustainable. The declared transaction value supported by invoices and a bank realisation certificate also could not be rejected in the absence of a legally sustainable basis, particularly where value variation was explained by agreed commercial factors such as moisture and Fe content at the buyer&#039;s port; the valuation adjustment was therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2024 08:08:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1155 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753102</link>
      <description>An export consignment declared and treated as iron ore fines could not be reclassified as iron ore lumps merely because some particles exceeded 10 mm, where the shipment was tested as a whole and the relevant standards allowed incidental larger particles within fines; the duty demand based on such artificial segregation was unsustainable. The declared transaction value supported by invoices and a bank realisation certificate also could not be rejected in the absence of a legally sustainable basis, particularly where value variation was explained by agreed commercial factors such as moisture and Fe content at the buyer&#039;s port; the valuation adjustment was therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>