https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423336 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the declared assessable value under Rule 12 due to discrepancies between the declared value and actual market prices, lack of supporting evidence for inferior quality claims, and failure to produce required licenses. The re-determined assessable value under Rule 5 was upheld based on similar goods' values. Penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA were justified for false declarations. The differential duty demand under Section 28(8) and interest under Section 28AA were deemed valid. The appeal was rejected, affirming the Tribunal's decision. en-us Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jun 2022 08:32:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423336 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the declared assessable value under Rule 12 due to discrepancies between the declared value and actual market prices, lack of supporting evidence for inferior quality claims, and failure to produce required licenses. The re-determined assessable value under Rule 5 was upheld based on similar goods' values. Penalties under Sections 112(a), 114A, and 114AA were justified for false declarations. The differential duty demand under Section 28(8) and interest under Section 28AA were deemed valid. The appeal was rejected, affirming the Tribunal's decision. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423336