CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging under-valuation...

CESTAT allowed the appeal challenging under-valuation allegations and differential customs duty demand under Section 14(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue's case relied on computer printouts seized from M/s Winsor Enterprises by DRI and retracted statements of appellant's partners, identical evidence used in sister concern M/s Plastic Cottage Trading Co.'s proceedings. Following precedent established in Junaid Kudia v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Import-II, where coordinate bench held such evidence insufficient for value enhancement, CESTAT determined differential duty demand, consequential penalty imposition, and goods confiscation legally unsustainable. The adjudicating authority's order dated 21.08.2020 was set aside as it failed legal scrutiny based on same investigation materials previously rejected.