https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204154 The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating Commissioner's decision to reject the declared values of the appellants, increase values, demand differential duty, and impose penalties based on evidence, including confessional statements. The Commissioner's order was deemed to have properly applied mind, considering discrepancies between declared and insured values. The appellants' failure to adequately explain the discrepancies and evidence of undervaluation through confessional statements led to the Tribunal affirming the decision and directing a specific pre-deposit amount to be made within a specified timeframe. en-us Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2011 12:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204154 The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating Commissioner's decision to reject the declared values of the appellants, increase values, demand differential duty, and impose penalties based on evidence, including confessional statements. The Commissioner's order was deemed to have properly applied mind, considering discrepancies between declared and insured values. The appellants' failure to adequately explain the discrepancies and evidence of undervaluation through confessional statements led to the Tribunal affirming the decision and directing a specific pre-deposit amount to be made within a specified timeframe. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204154