https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374282 The Tribunal concluded that the demand for differential duty was not sustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on coerced statements. The penalties imposed under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act were set aside. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of positive and tangible evidence to substantiate allegations of undervaluation. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Jan 2019 08:17:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374282 The Tribunal concluded that the demand for differential duty was not sustainable due to the lack of corroborative evidence and reliance on coerced statements. The penalties imposed under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act were set aside. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of positive and tangible evidence to substantiate allegations of undervaluation. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 11 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374282