<?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 (10) TMI 128 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779332</link>
    <description>Declared transaction value in customs valuation cannot be displaced on the basis of unauthenticated proforma invoices or untested statements unless the department satisfies the mandatory evidentiary requirements and produces reliable corroborative material showing undervaluation. The Tribunal held that quotations recovered from an electronic device, without admissible electronic-record proof or effective testing of statements, were insufficient to reject the declared value. As the value re-determination failed, the differential duty demand, interest and penalties also could not survive. Confiscation and redemption fine were likewise unsustainable, and the amount deposited during investigation was treated as refundable with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2025 17:01:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=856174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 128 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779332</link>
      <description>Declared transaction value in customs valuation cannot be displaced on the basis of unauthenticated proforma invoices or untested statements unless the department satisfies the mandatory evidentiary requirements and produces reliable corroborative material showing undervaluation. The Tribunal held that quotations recovered from an electronic device, without admissible electronic-record proof or effective testing of statements, were insufficient to reject the declared value. As the value re-determination failed, the differential duty demand, interest and penalties also could not survive. Confiscation and redemption fine were likewise unsustainable, and the amount deposited during investigation was treated as refundable with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>