https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444538 Declared transaction value could not be rejected merely on NIDB data, alleged comparable imports of different quantity or packaging, or an uncorroborated office sheet where there was no contemporaneous evidence of branded goods or false declaration, so the re-determined value and differential duty for the nine Bills of Entry were set aside. The duty demand for those Bills of Entry was also barred by limitation because the clearances were assessed in the normal course and suppression was not shown. For Bill of Entry No. 8177874, proceedings under Section 28 were competent, but the same valuation materials were insufficient to reject the declared value or sustain confiscation, redemption fine or duty demand. The partner's penalty was set aside because the underlying undervaluation and suppression allegation failed. en-us Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Oct 2023 07:42:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444538 Declared transaction value could not be rejected merely on NIDB data, alleged comparable imports of different quantity or packaging, or an uncorroborated office sheet where there was no contemporaneous evidence of branded goods or false declaration, so the re-determined value and differential duty for the nine Bills of Entry were set aside. The duty demand for those Bills of Entry was also barred by limitation because the clearances were assessed in the normal course and suppression was not shown. For Bill of Entry No. 8177874, proceedings under Section 28 were competent, but the same valuation materials were insufficient to reject the declared value or sustain confiscation, redemption fine or duty demand. The partner's penalty was set aside because the underlying undervaluation and suppression allegation failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444538