https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357063 Transaction value for clearances from a 100% EOU to its DTA unit could not be rejected merely because the units were related persons. Rule 7(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was held inapplicable where the DTA unit did not manufacture the same goods, and comparison with small, non-comparable import consignments could not justify re-determination absent evidence that the relationship influenced price. Allegations of clandestine removal based on a private notebook and statements also failed because the notebook author was not examined, one statement was retracted, and no independent corroboration showed additional raw materials or production capacity. The undervaluation demand and the clandestine clearance demand were set aside. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Mar 2018 07:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357063 Transaction value for clearances from a 100% EOU to its DTA unit could not be rejected merely because the units were related persons. Rule 7(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 was held inapplicable where the DTA unit did not manufacture the same goods, and comparison with small, non-comparable import consignments could not justify re-determination absent evidence that the relationship influenced price. Allegations of clandestine removal based on a private notebook and statements also failed because the notebook author was not examined, one statement was retracted, and no independent corroboration showed additional raw materials or production capacity. The undervaluation demand and the clandestine clearance demand were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357063