https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128028 The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal by remand. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the matter, emphasizing the appellants' purchase on a stock lot basis and the issue of importing goods without permission of IPR right holders. The case involved mis-declaration of goods, leading to under-valuation, confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contested the Department's actions, arguing against the rejection of declared value and lack of evidence of under-valuation. The Tribunal noted the lack of substantial data to dispute the declared value and considered the appellants' assertions, leading to the decision to remand the case. en-us Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128028 The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal by remand. The Commissioner was directed to reconsider the matter, emphasizing the appellants' purchase on a stock lot basis and the issue of importing goods without permission of IPR right holders. The case involved mis-declaration of goods, leading to under-valuation, confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contested the Department's actions, arguing against the rejection of declared value and lack of evidence of under-valuation. The Tribunal noted the lack of substantial data to dispute the declared value and considered the appellants' assertions, leading to the decision to remand the case. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128028