<?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>2001 (9) TMI 173 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50818</link>
    <description>PLATT price reports, being compilations of price ranges rather than records of actual transactions, could not by themselves be treated as alternate transaction values for customs valuation. In the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports, the declared value could not be enhanced on the basis of those reports. The commentary also states that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the order-in-original, and that the appellate valuation was legal and proper.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:18:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 173 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50818</link>
      <description>PLATT price reports, being compilations of price ranges rather than records of actual transactions, could not by themselves be treated as alternate transaction values for customs valuation. In the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports, the declared value could not be enhanced on the basis of those reports. The commentary also states that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the order-in-original, and that the appellate valuation was legal and proper.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>