https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80980 Customs valuation was sustained where the price lists relied on by Customs did not show CIF pricing and the importer failed to substantiate its declared value by reference to earlier or later imports of similar goods. Confiscation and penalty based on alleged trafficking in the import licence were rejected because the allegation rested mainly on third-party statements, cross-examination had been denied, and no documentary proof of sale of the licence was produced. Cheques alone were held insufficient, and the reasoning also noted that paragraph 118(5) of the Handbook was inconsistent with the relevant import control rule and had later been omitted. The result was that valuation enhancement stood, while confiscation and penalty failed. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:44:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80980 Customs valuation was sustained where the price lists relied on by Customs did not show CIF pricing and the importer failed to substantiate its declared value by reference to earlier or later imports of similar goods. Confiscation and penalty based on alleged trafficking in the import licence were rejected because the allegation rested mainly on third-party statements, cross-examination had been denied, and no documentary proof of sale of the licence was produced. Cheques alone were held insufficient, and the reasoning also noted that paragraph 118(5) of the Handbook was inconsistent with the relevant import control rule and had later been omitted. The result was that valuation enhancement stood, while confiscation and penalty failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80980