<?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 325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782785</link>
    <description>CESTAT upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order rejecting the declared transaction value of imported motorcycle batteries and re-determining their assessable value under customs law. The Tribunal noted that the importer repeatedly failed to file a reply to the SCN or appear for personal hearing, justifying ex-parte adjudication based on available documentary evidence. The Commissioner&#039;s findings that the declared values were significantly lower than contemporaneous international prices, supported by correspondence and data on similar batteries, were found to be reasoned and lawful. A last-minute request for adjournment at the dictation stage was refused. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2025 09:19:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=869113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782785</link>
      <description>CESTAT upheld the Commissioner&#039;s order rejecting the declared transaction value of imported motorcycle batteries and re-determining their assessable value under customs law. The Tribunal noted that the importer repeatedly failed to file a reply to the SCN or appear for personal hearing, justifying ex-parte adjudication based on available documentary evidence. The Commissioner&#039;s findings that the declared values were significantly lower than contemporaneous international prices, supported by correspondence and data on similar batteries, were found to be reasoned and lawful. A last-minute request for adjournment at the dictation stage was refused. The appeal was dismissed and the impugned order sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>