<?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>Customs valuation re-determination upholds declared transaction value but rejects rule 10 loading and surrogate adjustments, order set aside</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96319</link>
    <description>Re-determination of assessable value under customs valuation focuses on whether declared transaction value includes costs for delivery and whether rule 10 supplementation or surrogate valuation was justified. The analysis emphasises that declared price purporting to be CIF cannot be supplemented by loading costs under rule 10 absent evidence that such costs were excluded from the contracted price, and that dispute over origin does not ipso facto render shipment costs indeterminate. The absence of use of rule 7 and rule 8 procedures for identical or similar goods was criticised, and the tribunal found no legal basis for upward re-valuation, confiscation or penalties on the impugned facts, setting aside the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2026 13:20:54 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2026 13:20:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=881116" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Customs valuation re-determination upholds declared transaction value but rejects rule 10 loading and surrogate adjustments, order set aside</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96319</link>
      <description>Re-determination of assessable value under customs valuation focuses on whether declared transaction value includes costs for delivery and whether rule 10 supplementation or surrogate valuation was justified. The analysis emphasises that declared price purporting to be CIF cannot be supplemented by loading costs under rule 10 absent evidence that such costs were excluded from the contracted price, and that dispute over origin does not ipso facto render shipment costs indeterminate. The absence of use of rule 7 and rule 8 procedures for identical or similar goods was criticised, and the tribunal found no legal basis for upward re-valuation, confiscation or penalties on the impugned facts, setting aside the order.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jan 2026 13:20:54 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>