https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395692 In a related-party customs valuation dispute, additional evidence supporting the declared import value was admitted because it went to the root of the valuation issue. The CESTAT noted that the imported goods were not fully comparable with stock-distributor imports and that the appellant operated at a different commercial level with bulk imports, inventory, warehousing and related costs. It held that transaction value could not be rejected and Rule 4 could not be applied unless value could not first be determined under Rule 3 on the basis of deductive value or computed value, with proper adjustment for commercial and quantity differences. The 77% enhancement was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination. en-us Wed, 27 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Jun 2020 11:15:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395692 In a related-party customs valuation dispute, additional evidence supporting the declared import value was admitted because it went to the root of the valuation issue. The CESTAT noted that the imported goods were not fully comparable with stock-distributor imports and that the appellant operated at a different commercial level with bulk imports, inventory, warehousing and related costs. It held that transaction value could not be rejected and Rule 4 could not be applied unless value could not first be determined under Rule 3 on the basis of deductive value or computed value, with proper adjustment for commercial and quantity differences. The 77% enhancement was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 27 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395692