<?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>2024 (5) TMI 1645 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465309</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the enhancement of the declared transaction value of imported goods and dismissed the appeal. It held that under section 17(4) and (5) of the Customs Act, once the importer has voluntarily and expressly accepted the enhanced value in writing, the proper officer is not required to undertake further valuation under Rules 4 to 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules or issue a show cause notice or grant personal hearing. The enhanced value then constitutes the declared transaction value. As the appellant had neither challenged the enhancement contemporaneously nor established that consent was involuntary or under duress, no infirmity was found in the reassessment or the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 09:28:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871779" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1645 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465309</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the enhancement of the declared transaction value of imported goods and dismissed the appeal. It held that under section 17(4) and (5) of the Customs Act, once the importer has voluntarily and expressly accepted the enhanced value in writing, the proper officer is not required to undertake further valuation under Rules 4 to 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules or issue a show cause notice or grant personal hearing. The enhanced value then constitutes the declared transaction value. As the appellant had neither challenged the enhancement contemporaneously nor established that consent was involuntary or under duress, no infirmity was found in the reassessment or the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>