https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216904 The tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of ADG, DRI to issue show-cause notices and the inclusion of costs for basic and extended design in the value of imported goods. It clarified that the adjustment under Rule 9 did not reject the transaction value declared by the assessee. The tribunal justified the extended time limit for duty demand due to suppression of facts by MRPL. Redemption fines were set aside as goods were not available for confiscation. Penalties under Section 114A and Section 112(a) were upheld, while the department's appeal for penalty enhancement under Section 114A was rejected. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2015 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216904 The tribunal upheld the jurisdiction of ADG, DRI to issue show-cause notices and the inclusion of costs for basic and extended design in the value of imported goods. It clarified that the adjustment under Rule 9 did not reject the transaction value declared by the assessee. The tribunal justified the extended time limit for duty demand due to suppression of facts by MRPL. Redemption fines were set aside as goods were not available for confiscation. Penalties under Section 114A and Section 112(a) were upheld, while the department's appeal for penalty enhancement under Section 114A was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216904