<?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>2026 (1) TMI 344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784588</link>
    <description>Misdeclaration of imported fabric warranted reclassification and reassessment because the goods declared in the bill of entry did not match the goods found on examination and CRCL testing, and the importer did not dispute the mismatch; reclassification and differential duty demand were sustained. Declared transaction value was rejectable under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules since the invoice related to different goods and no supporting evidence of value was produced; value was correctly redetermined sequentially using contemporaneous imports of similar goods under Rule 5, and the enhanced assessable value was upheld. As the goods were misdeclared, they were liable to confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine of about 10% of value was held proportionate and maintained, and mandatory penalty under s.114A equal to duty evaded was affirmed, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +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=876628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784588</link>
      <description>Misdeclaration of imported fabric warranted reclassification and reassessment because the goods declared in the bill of entry did not match the goods found on examination and CRCL testing, and the importer did not dispute the mismatch; reclassification and differential duty demand were sustained. Declared transaction value was rejectable under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules since the invoice related to different goods and no supporting evidence of value was produced; value was correctly redetermined sequentially using contemporaneous imports of similar goods under Rule 5, and the enhanced assessable value was upheld. As the goods were misdeclared, they were liable to confiscation under s.111(m); redemption fine of about 10% of value was held proportionate and maintained, and mandatory penalty under s.114A equal to duty evaded was affirmed, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784588</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>