<?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 (8) TMI 939 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797065</link>
    <description>Declared export value cannot be rejected for overvaluation solely on parallel or pro-forma invoices unrelated to the disputed consignment. In the absence of contemporaneous export-price comparisons, market inquiry, or evidence of financial flow-back from the overseas buyer, the overvaluation charge fails; redemption fine and the enhanced penalty under Section 114AA were set aside. Past generation of such invoices nevertheless supported retention of the original penalty on the partnership firm under Section 114. Separate penalties on a partner and the firm for the same infraction constitute double punishment because the firm is not distinct from its partners for this purpose; the partner&#039;s penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:38:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 939 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797065</link>
      <description>Declared export value cannot be rejected for overvaluation solely on parallel or pro-forma invoices unrelated to the disputed consignment. In the absence of contemporaneous export-price comparisons, market inquiry, or evidence of financial flow-back from the overseas buyer, the overvaluation charge fails; redemption fine and the enhanced penalty under Section 114AA were set aside. Past generation of such invoices nevertheless supported retention of the original penalty on the partnership firm under Section 114. Separate penalties on a partner and the firm for the same infraction constitute double punishment because the firm is not distinct from its partners for this purpose; the partner&#039;s penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>