https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80525 The declared invoice value of imported goods could not be rejected on mere inference of pre-importation services or a supposed nexus between parties; the Department had to prove with evidence that the price was not the real transaction value. Absence of proof of mutuality of interest, absence of evidence that the exporter incurred the alleged service-related expenditure, and lack of contemporaneous import data supporting enhancement meant valuation under Section 14(1)(b) and Rule 8 could not be invoked. The invoice value was therefore accepted as the assessable value, and the proposed loading was unjustified. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:38:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80525 The declared invoice value of imported goods could not be rejected on mere inference of pre-importation services or a supposed nexus between parties; the Department had to prove with evidence that the price was not the real transaction value. Absence of proof of mutuality of interest, absence of evidence that the exporter incurred the alleged service-related expenditure, and lack of contemporaneous import data supporting enhancement meant valuation under Section 14(1)(b) and Rule 8 could not be invoked. The invoice value was therefore accepted as the assessable value, and the proposed loading was unjustified. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80525