<?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 (3) TMI 353 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787598</link>
    <description>When imported memory cards were concealed and undeclared within consignments described as metal clips, the declared transaction value was rejected and value re-determined under the statutory valuation rules; accordingly differential customs duty and cess were lawfully demanded. Confiscation of the concealed goods, imposition of mandatory penalties for suppression/collusion, and redemption fines are authorised and were upheld on the facts. Procedurally, multiple personal hearing opportunities were afforded, cross-examination was conducted, and no denial of the opportunity to be heard was found; the procedural challenge therefore fails and the adjudication sustaining duty, penalties and fines stands against the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 08:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 353 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787598</link>
      <description>When imported memory cards were concealed and undeclared within consignments described as metal clips, the declared transaction value was rejected and value re-determined under the statutory valuation rules; accordingly differential customs duty and cess were lawfully demanded. Confiscation of the concealed goods, imposition of mandatory penalties for suppression/collusion, and redemption fines are authorised and were upheld on the facts. Procedurally, multiple personal hearing opportunities were afforded, cross-examination was conducted, and no denial of the opportunity to be heard was found; the procedural challenge therefore fails and the adjudication sustaining duty, penalties and fines stands against the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>