https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348637 The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for relying solely on LME zinc prices to enhance the valuation of imported goods without concrete evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices. It highlighted flaws in rejecting the transaction value without substantial proof and criticized the lack of due diligence in considering the importer's submissions. The Tribunal found fault with the undervaluation claim due to the absence of manufacturer's invoices and emphasized addressing valuation concerns during the clearance process. The redemption fine on cleared goods was set aside, but penalties under Sections 114(A) and 114(AA) were upheld, ultimately allowing the importer's appeal. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348637 The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for relying solely on LME zinc prices to enhance the valuation of imported goods without concrete evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices. It highlighted flaws in rejecting the transaction value without substantial proof and criticized the lack of due diligence in considering the importer's submissions. The Tribunal found fault with the undervaluation claim due to the absence of manufacturer's invoices and emphasized addressing valuation concerns during the clearance process. The redemption fine on cleared goods was set aside, but penalties under Sections 114(A) and 114(AA) were upheld, ultimately allowing the importer's appeal. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348637