https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117924 Declared transaction value under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules could be rejected where matching identifying particulars across the Bill of Entry, airway bill, invoice and Hong Kong export declaration showed the imported goods were the same as the exported goods; the assessable value was therefore correctly fixed on the basis of the export declaration. The extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act was sustainable because the undervaluation was treated as deliberate misdeclaration based on a wrong invoice in collusion with the exporter, and the confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(m) and 114A were consequently upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:45:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117924 Declared transaction value under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules could be rejected where matching identifying particulars across the Bill of Entry, airway bill, invoice and Hong Kong export declaration showed the imported goods were the same as the exported goods; the assessable value was therefore correctly fixed on the basis of the export declaration. The extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act was sustainable because the undervaluation was treated as deliberate misdeclaration based on a wrong invoice in collusion with the exporter, and the confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(m) and 114A were consequently upheld. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117924