https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371789 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to re-determine the value of imported goods under Rule 7A of CVR, 1988, due to mis-declaration of quantity and value. The appellant's objections regarding confiscation under Section 111(m) and rejection of transaction value were dismissed. The Tribunal found discrepancies supporting the rejection of declared value and affirmed the re-determination based on valid reasons. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, leading to the demand for differential duty, penalties, testing charges, redemption fine, and appropriation of bank guarantees. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Mar 2020 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371789 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to re-determine the value of imported goods under Rule 7A of CVR, 1988, due to mis-declaration of quantity and value. The appellant's objections regarding confiscation under Section 111(m) and rejection of transaction value were dismissed. The Tribunal found discrepancies supporting the rejection of declared value and affirmed the re-determination based on valid reasons. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, leading to the demand for differential duty, penalties, testing charges, redemption fine, and appropriation of bank guarantees. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371789