https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270132 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order that rejected the appeal in four imports and allowed in two cases. The appellant's argument that the enhancement of value based on contemporaneous prices lacked supporting evidence was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the need for verification of similarity in character, quality, quantity, and origin before applying contemporaneous prices, especially for residual products like imported rags with varying characteristics. As a result, the Tribunal found insufficient basis for the Revenue's value enhancement, leading to the appeal being allowed based on the lack of a proper foundation for the enhancement. en-us Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 May 2016 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270132 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order that rejected the appeal in four imports and allowed in two cases. The appellant's argument that the enhancement of value based on contemporaneous prices lacked supporting evidence was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized the need for verification of similarity in character, quality, quantity, and origin before applying contemporaneous prices, especially for residual products like imported rags with varying characteristics. As a result, the Tribunal found insufficient basis for the Revenue's value enhancement, leading to the appeal being allowed based on the lack of a proper foundation for the enhancement. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270132