<?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 (12) TMI 145 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52448</link>
    <description>Declared import value must be accepted under the Customs Valuation Rules unless the department establishes a recognised exception justifying rejection of transaction value. In this case, enhancement based on comparison with other imports failed because the relied-upon goods came from different countries and were not shown to be identical or similar for valuation purposes. The later Rule 10A could not be invoked for imports made before its introduction, and the declared price was not shown to be unrealistically low merely because other consignments of different quantity or origin fetched different prices. The declared value was therefore upheld and no substitution of a higher value was warranted on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:56:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 145 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52448</link>
      <description>Declared import value must be accepted under the Customs Valuation Rules unless the department establishes a recognised exception justifying rejection of transaction value. In this case, enhancement based on comparison with other imports failed because the relied-upon goods came from different countries and were not shown to be identical or similar for valuation purposes. The later Rule 10A could not be invoked for imports made before its introduction, and the declared price was not shown to be unrealistically low merely because other consignments of different quantity or origin fetched different prices. The declared value was therefore upheld and no substitution of a higher value was warranted on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>