<?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 (12) TMI 100 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50851</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous import prices and market enquiries supported enhancement of the assessable value of imported PU leather cloth under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, where the goods were shown to be undervalued against comparable imports. The importer&#039;s acceptance of enhancement on the basis of departmental material reinforced the valuation finding, so the challenge to enhanced value failed. However, the surrounding facts, including the explanation for excess length and the basis for enhancement, did not fully justify punitive action, so the redemption fine and penalty were deleted. The appeals were thus partly allowed, with valuation sustained but the penal components set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:01:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 100 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50851</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous import prices and market enquiries supported enhancement of the assessable value of imported PU leather cloth under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, where the goods were shown to be undervalued against comparable imports. The importer&#039;s acceptance of enhancement on the basis of departmental material reinforced the valuation finding, so the challenge to enhanced value failed. However, the surrounding facts, including the explanation for excess length and the basis for enhancement, did not fully justify punitive action, so the redemption fine and penalty were deleted. The appeals were thus partly allowed, with valuation sustained but the penal components set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>