<?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>2003 (1) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51832</link>
    <description>Pocket brick games were treated as hand-operated toys with an apparent self-contained screen, not as video games, so they fell under Heading 95.03 rather than Heading 95.04 for additional customs duty purposes. That classification meant no additional customs duty was payable, and the departmental view was not accepted. The transaction value was also upheld because the enhanced assessable value had been fixed without a valid basis, contemporaneous imports, or supporting evidence. The accepted value was therefore sustained and the valuation enhancement rejected. The importers succeeded on classification and valuation, while the Revenue&#039;s contrary position was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:50:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90310" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 162 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51832</link>
      <description>Pocket brick games were treated as hand-operated toys with an apparent self-contained screen, not as video games, so they fell under Heading 95.03 rather than Heading 95.04 for additional customs duty purposes. That classification meant no additional customs duty was payable, and the departmental view was not accepted. The transaction value was also upheld because the enhanced assessable value had been fixed without a valid basis, contemporaneous imports, or supporting evidence. The accepted value was therefore sustained and the valuation enhancement rejected. The importers succeeded on classification and valuation, while the Revenue&#039;s contrary position was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>