<?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 (7) TMI 1013 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795127</link>
    <description>Transaction value remains the primary basis for customs valuation and may be rejected under Rule 12 only where reasonable doubt about the declared value persists after considering the importer&#039;s explanation. Full banking remittance, absence of additional consideration or related-party influence, and no discrepancy on First Check examination supported acceptance of the declared value. NIDB data alone, without disclosed and commercially comparable contemporaneous import evidence on quantity, commercial level, manufacturer, quality or specifications, did not justify rejection or resort to Rule 5 valuation. The resulting enhancement, differential duty and interest were unsustainable. As confiscation, redemption fine and penalty depended solely on that enhancement and lacked independent misdeclaration evidence, they were also unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:37:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1013 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795127</link>
      <description>Transaction value remains the primary basis for customs valuation and may be rejected under Rule 12 only where reasonable doubt about the declared value persists after considering the importer&#039;s explanation. Full banking remittance, absence of additional consideration or related-party influence, and no discrepancy on First Check examination supported acceptance of the declared value. NIDB data alone, without disclosed and commercially comparable contemporaneous import evidence on quantity, commercial level, manufacturer, quality or specifications, did not justify rejection or resort to Rule 5 valuation. The resulting enhancement, differential duty and interest were unsustainable. As confiscation, redemption fine and penalty depended solely on that enhancement and lacked independent misdeclaration evidence, they were also unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795127</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>