<?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>Misdeclared imported fabric as viscose instead of polyester; Rule 12 valuation rejection upheld, duty demand, s111(m) confiscation, s114A penalty</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95838</link>
    <description>Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876621" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Misdeclared imported fabric as viscose instead of polyester; Rule 12 valuation rejection upheld, duty demand, s111(m) confiscation, s114A penalty</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95838</link>
      <description>Imported goods were found, on examination and CRCL testing, to be polyester filament yarn fabric though declared as viscose polyamide woven fabric; the importer did not dispute the mis-declaration and accepted re-classification and consequent re-assessment, so reclassification was sustained. Since the invoice related to different goods, the proper officer had reasonable doubt under Rule 12 to reject the declared transaction value; as no supporting evidence was produced, value was correctly re-determined under the sequential rules using contemporaneous import data of similar goods, and differential duty was sustained. Mis-declaration attracted confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine at about 10% of value was upheld, and mandatory penalty equal to duty under s.114A was affirmed; appeal dismissed. - CESTAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>