<?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>2002 (10) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51807</link>
    <description>Imported knitted polyester base fabric with polyamide flocking was treated as consistent with the declared description of man-made tricot flocking fabric, and the alleged misdeclaration failed for want of proof. A small excess in roll quantity was also not enough to establish misdeclaration, given normal commercial tolerances in textile rolls and the absence of evidence of deliberate false declaration. Transaction value could not be rejected because the Department did not produce adequate comparable material or prove undervaluation, so enhanced valuation was not sustained. As the alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation were not established, confiscation and penalty also failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:56:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51807</link>
      <description>Imported knitted polyester base fabric with polyamide flocking was treated as consistent with the declared description of man-made tricot flocking fabric, and the alleged misdeclaration failed for want of proof. A small excess in roll quantity was also not enough to establish misdeclaration, given normal commercial tolerances in textile rolls and the absence of evidence of deliberate false declaration. Transaction value could not be rejected because the Department did not produce adequate comparable material or prove undervaluation, so enhanced valuation was not sustained. As the alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation were not established, confiscation and penalty also failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>