https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2271 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty, as the misdeclaration of quantity and value was not conclusively proven. It emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence for determining CIF value, rejecting reliance on unrelated statements for value enhancement. The decision underscored the bill filer's liability in import cases, dismissing the appellant's assertion of not being the actual importer. en-us Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2271 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalty, as the misdeclaration of quantity and value was not conclusively proven. It emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence for determining CIF value, rejecting reliance on unrelated statements for value enhancement. The decision underscored the bill filer's liability in import cases, dismissing the appellant's assertion of not being the actual importer. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2271