<?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>Declared transaction value of imported second-hand machinery upheld; no related-party influence, Section 14 and Rule 3(2) applied</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93425</link>
    <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the declared transaction value of the imported second-hand machinery must be accepted for customs assessment. The Tribunal found no evidence of related-party influence, impropriety or undisclosed payments affecting transaction value under Section 14, Customs Act, 1962, and no proviso grounds in Rule 3(2), CVR 2007 to reject the invoice. The load-port Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate was held reliable; the local CE report was deficient for failing to identify which valuation factors were applied. Absent justifiable basis to discard the load-port opinion, there was no misdeclaration and the reassessment/enhancement was unwarranted. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Declared transaction value of imported second-hand machinery upheld; no related-party influence, Section 14 and Rule 3(2) applied</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93425</link>
      <description>CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the declared transaction value of the imported second-hand machinery must be accepted for customs assessment. The Tribunal found no evidence of related-party influence, impropriety or undisclosed payments affecting transaction value under Section 14, Customs Act, 1962, and no proviso grounds in Rule 3(2), CVR 2007 to reject the invoice. The load-port Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate was held reliable; the local CE report was deficient for failing to identify which valuation factors were applied. Absent justifiable basis to discard the load-port opinion, there was no misdeclaration and the reassessment/enhancement was unwarranted. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>