https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122549 Declared transaction value could not be rejected and assessable value could not be enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports unless the compared goods first satisfied the definition of identical goods under Rule 2(c), including similarity in physical characteristics, quality and reputation, and were shown to have been imported contemporaneously at a higher value. The record did not show that this comparison was properly undertaken, and no valid reason was given for discarding the declared value. The disclosed manufacturer was not disputed, and the importer's documents indicated a price broadly consistent with the declaration, so enhancement of value was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:41:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122549 Declared transaction value could not be rejected and assessable value could not be enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous imports unless the compared goods first satisfied the definition of identical goods under Rule 2(c), including similarity in physical characteristics, quality and reputation, and were shown to have been imported contemporaneously at a higher value. The record did not show that this comparison was properly undertaken, and no valid reason was given for discarding the declared value. The disclosed manufacturer was not disputed, and the importer's documents indicated a price broadly consistent with the declaration, so enhancement of value was not sustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122549