https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395720 Declared transaction value of imported goods could not be rejected merely by relying on higher third-party import prices, where the declared price was supported by a pre-notified inter-company price list and no evidence showed any flow-back or additional consideration to the foreign supplier. Comparison with another importer was unsound because the goods were not shown to be comparable in specification and included special modifications, additional painting, and other features that could justify a different price. The appellate order was also deficient because it gave no cogent reasons for discarding transaction value and did not state the valuation method or rule-based sequence to be applied after rejection. The rejection of the assessable value was therefore unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2021 16:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395720 Declared transaction value of imported goods could not be rejected merely by relying on higher third-party import prices, where the declared price was supported by a pre-notified inter-company price list and no evidence showed any flow-back or additional consideration to the foreign supplier. Comparison with another importer was unsound because the goods were not shown to be comparable in specification and included special modifications, additional painting, and other features that could justify a different price. The appellate order was also deficient because it gave no cogent reasons for discarding transaction value and did not state the valuation method or rule-based sequence to be applied after rejection. The rejection of the assessable value was therefore unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395720