<?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 (6) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52267</link>
    <description>Completed customs assessments cannot be reopened for short levy or non-levy without following the statutory recovery procedure under Section 28, so the concluded Bills of Entry were not validly disturbed. Advance fixation of assessable value for future imports was beyond the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s authority, because prospective tariff valuation can be set only by the competent Government authority. Declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely because another buyer imported identical goods at a higher price; the valuation rules require recognised grounds for rejection, and the importer&#039;s contract terms and commercial pricing explanation supported acceptance of the declared value. The assessment orders were therefore unsustainable and excess duty was refundable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2024 17:49:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52267</link>
      <description>Completed customs assessments cannot be reopened for short levy or non-levy without following the statutory recovery procedure under Section 28, so the concluded Bills of Entry were not validly disturbed. Advance fixation of assessable value for future imports was beyond the Deputy Commissioner&#039;s authority, because prospective tariff valuation can be set only by the competent Government authority. Declared transaction value cannot be rejected merely because another buyer imported identical goods at a higher price; the valuation rules require recognised grounds for rejection, and the importer&#039;s contract terms and commercial pricing explanation supported acceptance of the declared value. The assessment orders were therefore unsustainable and excess duty was refundable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>