<?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>2000 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50121</link>
    <description>Customs authorities may rely on a manufacturer&#039;s price list to test the truth of the declared transaction value where it appears inconsistent with the invoice value. Here, the price list showed a substantially higher value, the goods bore markings matching that list, and the importer produced no documentary evidence to prove a claimed discount or any reduction from the manufacturer&#039;s listed price. A prima facie case of undervaluation was therefore established, and the burden shifted to the importer to rebut it. As no satisfactory rebuttal was made, reassessment of the imported goods&#039; value on the basis of the manufacturer&#039;s price list was upheld and the differential duty demand remained in force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:00:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 149 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50121</link>
      <description>Customs authorities may rely on a manufacturer&#039;s price list to test the truth of the declared transaction value where it appears inconsistent with the invoice value. Here, the price list showed a substantially higher value, the goods bore markings matching that list, and the importer produced no documentary evidence to prove a claimed discount or any reduction from the manufacturer&#039;s listed price. A prima facie case of undervaluation was therefore established, and the burden shifted to the importer to rebut it. As no satisfactory rebuttal was made, reassessment of the imported goods&#039; value on the basis of the manufacturer&#039;s price list was upheld and the differential duty demand remained in force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>