<?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 (4) TMI 1848 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790779</link>
    <description>Customs valuation of related-party imports under section 14 and the valuation rules turned on whether the importer, a wholly owned subsidiary, and the foreign supplier were related persons with mutuality of interest; that relationship was established on the basis of control and parent-subsidiary business interest. For the Palladium system imported in 2006, the declared value was accepted because the record showed cost plus representative profit and no influence on price, so enhancement was unwarranted. For later imports, the invoices were for customs valuation only and excluded profit margin, so adding a reasonable profit element based on the supplier&#039;s profitability data was upheld. The valuation enhancement thus failed only for the 2006 import.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1848 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790779</link>
      <description>Customs valuation of related-party imports under section 14 and the valuation rules turned on whether the importer, a wholly owned subsidiary, and the foreign supplier were related persons with mutuality of interest; that relationship was established on the basis of control and parent-subsidiary business interest. For the Palladium system imported in 2006, the declared value was accepted because the record showed cost plus representative profit and no influence on price, so enhancement was unwarranted. For later imports, the invoices were for customs valuation only and excluded profit margin, so adding a reasonable profit element based on the supplier&#039;s profitability data was upheld. The valuation enhancement thus failed only for the 2006 import.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>