CESTAT held that the rejection of the declared transaction value...

CESTAT held that the rejection of the declared transaction value and consequent redetermination of customs duty were unsustainable, as the procedure under Rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules was not followed and no evidence of additional consideration or contemporaneous imports was produced. Reliance solely on the Petrosil database and comparison with another importer's prices, without establishing their applicability to the present imports, was found legally untenable. CESTAT further held that the extended limitation under the proviso to s. 28(1) was inapplicable in the absence of suppression, particularly since most Bills of Entry had been finally assessed and reopened after about four years. Consequently, the proposals for confiscation and all penalties imposed under ss. 112, 114A and 114AA were set aside. The impugned order-in-original was quashed and the appeals of M/s X and its co-appellants were allowed in full.