https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357078 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the declared values should be accepted unless valid grounds exist for rejection. It held that undervaluation cannot be solely determined based on NIDB data and market enquiry, stating that the transaction value should be upheld. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of clear evidence to justify reopening assessments for past Bills of Entry and rejected the differential duty demand, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357078 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the declared values should be accepted unless valid grounds exist for rejection. It held that undervaluation cannot be solely determined based on NIDB data and market enquiry, stating that the transaction value should be upheld. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of clear evidence to justify reopening assessments for past Bills of Entry and rejected the differential duty demand, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357078