<?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 1533 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785777</link>
    <description>Transaction value in related-party imports must be accepted where the Special Valuation Branch has found that the relationship did not influence the invoice price. Rejection based on a contemporaneous third-party import requires a genuinely comparable buyer class, commercial level and quantity, with demonstrated evidence supporting adjustments for differences. A single import by an actual user in materially smaller quantities cannot justify loading against a reseller or distributor without reliable adjustments. The stated conclusion is that the assessing officer&#039;s rejection of declared value was unsustainable for consignments covered by the earlier SVB findings, requiring acceptance of transaction value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2026 08:55:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=882565" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1533 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785777</link>
      <description>Transaction value in related-party imports must be accepted where the Special Valuation Branch has found that the relationship did not influence the invoice price. Rejection based on a contemporaneous third-party import requires a genuinely comparable buyer class, commercial level and quantity, with demonstrated evidence supporting adjustments for differences. A single import by an actual user in materially smaller quantities cannot justify loading against a reseller or distributor without reliable adjustments. The stated conclusion is that the assessing officer&#039;s rejection of declared value was unsustainable for consignments covered by the earlier SVB findings, requiring acceptance of transaction value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785777</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>