The CESTAT held that the department's reliance on evidence...

The CESTAT held that the department's reliance on evidence recovered from other importers and the CRCL test report was inadmissible, as the goods and suppliers were not identical, and no GSM-wise import data was available. The department's valuation based on assumed GSM rates was unsupported. Additionally, a retracted letter relied upon by the department was deemed obtained under duress and thus unsustainable. Consequently, the department failed to establish undervaluation of the imported PVC flex sheets by the appellant. The extended period of limitation invoked by the department was not upheld due to lack of admissible evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation were rejected.