<?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>Tribunal Overturns Confiscation, Fine, and Penalty for Importer After Compliance with Customs Valuation Dispute.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83432</link>
    <description>Appellant imported fuel filters and other filters from China, but upon examination, it was found that the goods were of superior quality branded as Komatsu, Deutz, Volvo, etc., originating from Germany, South Korea, allowing the importer to sell them as original branded filters. The declared invoice value from the Chinese exporter could not be accepted prima facie. The appellant initially agreed to pay the differential duty as per the enhanced value determined by Customs officials but later sought re-examination by a Chartered Engineer approved by DGFT. The Tribunal found no error in the Chartered Engineer&#039;s examination and value determination. The appellant was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.25,23,360/- along with interest to .....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Overturns Confiscation, Fine, and Penalty for Importer After Compliance with Customs Valuation Dispute.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83432</link>
      <description>Appellant imported fuel filters and other filters from China, but upon examination, it was found that the goods were of superior quality branded as Komatsu, Deutz, Volvo, etc., originating from Germany, South Korea, allowing the importer to sell them as original branded filters. The declared invoice value from the Chinese exporter could not be accepted prima facie. The appellant initially agreed to pay the differential duty as per the enhanced value determined by Customs officials but later sought re-examination by a Chartered Engineer approved by DGFT. The Tribunal found no error in the Chartered Engineer&#039;s examination and value determination. The appellant was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.25,23,360/- along with interest to .....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 07:48:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>