https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378648 Imported stainless steel pipes were alleged to have been misdeclared as defective goods, but the evidence did not support rejection of the declared value. The Tribunal noted that visual inspection and revenue reports only suggested the goods appeared prime, while chemical testing by the Deputy Chief Chemist and the VJTI report showed non-conformity with the claimed AISI 304 specification. On that basis, the charge of misdeclaration failed, and rejection of the transaction value under Rule 10A with valuation under Rule 5 on contemporaneous imports was not sustained. The order confirming differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty was set aside, with consequential relief granted. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:46:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378648 Imported stainless steel pipes were alleged to have been misdeclared as defective goods, but the evidence did not support rejection of the declared value. The Tribunal noted that visual inspection and revenue reports only suggested the goods appeared prime, while chemical testing by the Deputy Chief Chemist and the VJTI report showed non-conformity with the claimed AISI 304 specification. On that basis, the charge of misdeclaration failed, and rejection of the transaction value under Rule 10A with valuation under Rule 5 on contemporaneous imports was not sustained. The order confirming differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty was set aside, with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=378648