https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83178 Claims that imported goods were of inferior quality did not displace an undervaluation charge because the party relying on that special plea failed to prove that the goods matched the earlier sample or to produce expert evidence showing loss of fragrance or any measurable reduction in value. Where valuation was based in part on undisclosed contemporaneous material and computer print-outs that were not supplied in copy, and no reasonable time was given to meet them, the adjudication was procedurally unfair. The deficient opportunity to rebut evidence prejudiced the valuation exercise and required the matter to be remitted for fresh adjudication on valuation and consequential issues. en-us Fri, 20 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:26:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83178 Claims that imported goods were of inferior quality did not displace an undervaluation charge because the party relying on that special plea failed to prove that the goods matched the earlier sample or to produce expert evidence showing loss of fragrance or any measurable reduction in value. Where valuation was based in part on undisclosed contemporaneous material and computer print-outs that were not supplied in copy, and no reasonable time was given to meet them, the adjudication was procedurally unfair. The deficient opportunity to rebut evidence prejudiced the valuation exercise and required the matter to be remitted for fresh adjudication on valuation and consequential issues. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83178