https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82601 The remand was confined to deciding whether the Revenue's 1988 quotation related to goods imported in 1987, and not to reopening valuation on an abstract basis. On the valuation issue, the Revenue produced no reliable evidence linking that quotation to the time of import, so the declared invoice value remained the only dependable material. The misdescription of the goods was held not to be so fundamental as to justify discarding the invoice value, since the goods were still decorative paper in substance. In the absence of acceptable evidence of correct value at the time and place of importation, undervaluation was not proved, the declared value was accepted, and the redemption fine was reduced. en-us Mon, 10 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:25:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82601 The remand was confined to deciding whether the Revenue's 1988 quotation related to goods imported in 1987, and not to reopening valuation on an abstract basis. On the valuation issue, the Revenue produced no reliable evidence linking that quotation to the time of import, so the declared invoice value remained the only dependable material. The misdescription of the goods was held not to be so fundamental as to justify discarding the invoice value, since the goods were still decorative paper in substance. In the absence of acceptable evidence of correct value at the time and place of importation, undervaluation was not proved, the declared value was accepted, and the redemption fine was reduced. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 10 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82601