https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270760 Declared transaction value of imported rough diamonds could not be rejected on the basis of a disputed expert panel report alone, where the record showed inconsistencies in the valuation exercise and no contemporaneous evidence of fake invoices or a relationship affecting price. On that basis, the alleged misdeclaration failed, and confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act also fell away because no reliable proof of forgery, fabrication, or other legal contravention was established. For the same reason, personal penalties under Section 112 on the directors and proprietor could not survive absent proved culpable participation. The impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Jan 2016 11:12:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270760 Declared transaction value of imported rough diamonds could not be rejected on the basis of a disputed expert panel report alone, where the record showed inconsistencies in the valuation exercise and no contemporaneous evidence of fake invoices or a relationship affecting price. On that basis, the alleged misdeclaration failed, and confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act also fell away because no reliable proof of forgery, fabrication, or other legal contravention was established. For the same reason, personal penalties under Section 112 on the directors and proprietor could not survive absent proved culpable participation. The impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270760