<?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>Export valuation under Customs Valuation Rules challenged; market survey rejected and seized goods ordered released after three years</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96706</link>
    <description>In export valuation under Section 14, the transaction value is the primary measure and Customs Valuation Rules (CVR, 2007) must be applied sequentially; the Revenue bears the burden to displace a declared invoice value. The tribunal found the department bypassed the sequential Rules and improperly relied on a market survey that compared manufacturers&#039; prices to a trader&#039;s procurement cost, rendering the comparison and re-determined per unit valuation (with an added notional 10% profit) incorrect and unsupported by law. Because the Revenue failed to justify reassessment, the appeals were dismissed and the seized goods were directed to be released following upload of the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 09:18:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 09:18:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885127" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Export valuation under Customs Valuation Rules challenged; market survey rejected and seized goods ordered released after three years</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96706</link>
      <description>In export valuation under Section 14, the transaction value is the primary measure and Customs Valuation Rules (CVR, 2007) must be applied sequentially; the Revenue bears the burden to displace a declared invoice value. The tribunal found the department bypassed the sequential Rules and improperly relied on a market survey that compared manufacturers&#039; prices to a trader&#039;s procurement cost, rendering the comparison and re-determined per unit valuation (with an added notional 10% profit) incorrect and unsupported by law. Because the Revenue failed to justify reassessment, the appeals were dismissed and the seized goods were directed to be released following upload of the order.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 09:18:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>