<?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 (12) TMI 248 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782708</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order setting aside enhancement of assessable value, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties on imported decorative LED lights and other electrical items from China. The Tribunal held that the assessing authority arbitrarily rejected the declared transaction value without cogent reasons, evidence of extra consideration, or proof of relationship affecting price, and failed to comply with Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Reliance on internet prices without following the sequential valuation rules was held impermissible. Absence of a speaking reassessment order under Sec. 17 further vitiated the enhancement, preserving the importer&#039;s right to appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868851" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 248 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782708</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order setting aside enhancement of assessable value, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties on imported decorative LED lights and other electrical items from China. The Tribunal held that the assessing authority arbitrarily rejected the declared transaction value without cogent reasons, evidence of extra consideration, or proof of relationship affecting price, and failed to comply with Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Reliance on internet prices without following the sequential valuation rules was held impermissible. Absence of a speaking reassessment order under Sec. 17 further vitiated the enhancement, preserving the importer&#039;s right to appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>