<?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 (5) TMI 1313 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792111</link>
    <description>Reclassification of imported goods from aluminium profiles to aluminium tubes was supported by examination records, sample results and parallel invoices, so transaction value rejection and value enhancement for the live consignment were upheld with consequential duty, confiscation and limited penalty relief. For past clearances, the extended limitation period was not justified on the same material without fresh evidence of separate suppression, so the demand was restricted to the normal period and only freight-related duty survived. A classification-based demand for later bills of entry failed where no separate sample examination or specific item-wise findings existed, and related fines and penalties were set aside. Undervaluation against the sister concern survived only for the normal period; penalties on the sister concern and connected individual were largely deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 12:25:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1313 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792111</link>
      <description>Reclassification of imported goods from aluminium profiles to aluminium tubes was supported by examination records, sample results and parallel invoices, so transaction value rejection and value enhancement for the live consignment were upheld with consequential duty, confiscation and limited penalty relief. For past clearances, the extended limitation period was not justified on the same material without fresh evidence of separate suppression, so the demand was restricted to the normal period and only freight-related duty survived. A classification-based demand for later bills of entry failed where no separate sample examination or specific item-wise findings existed, and related fines and penalties were set aside. Undervaluation against the sister concern survived only for the normal period; penalties on the sister concern and connected individual were largely deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>