<?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>2025 (8) TMI 419 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776232</link>
    <description>Festive, single-use and non-durable balloons imported for Holi celebrations were treated as festive or entertainment articles under Heading 9505, rather than as toys or toy balloons under Heading 9503, because the more specific festive description prevailed under the General Rules of Interpretation and the HSN Explanatory Notes. Declared value and quantity could not be rejected on the basis of alleged misdeclaration where the record did not establish undervaluation, the market enquiry was deficient, comparable goods were not properly shown, and the valuation exercise was not followed sequentially under the applicable rules. As misdeclaration and undervaluation were not proved, confiscation and penalty were not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2025 07:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 419 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776232</link>
      <description>Festive, single-use and non-durable balloons imported for Holi celebrations were treated as festive or entertainment articles under Heading 9505, rather than as toys or toy balloons under Heading 9503, because the more specific festive description prevailed under the General Rules of Interpretation and the HSN Explanatory Notes. Declared value and quantity could not be rejected on the basis of alleged misdeclaration where the record did not establish undervaluation, the market enquiry was deficient, comparable goods were not properly shown, and the valuation exercise was not followed sequentially under the applicable rules. As misdeclaration and undervaluation were not proved, confiscation and penalty were not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>