https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449626 Acceptance of the importer's transaction value for the 2010-2013 period was found proper because the Department produced no specific evidence of undervaluation, no higher contemporaneous value from NIDB data or comparable imports, and the importer supported its declared value with an affidavit and relevant documents. The amendment to Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 had no bearing on the dispute since no royalty or technical know-how fee was paid during the relevant period, so nothing was required to be added to the declared value. The request for remand was rejected. en-us Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Aug 2024 12:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449626 Acceptance of the importer's transaction value for the 2010-2013 period was found proper because the Department produced no specific evidence of undervaluation, no higher contemporaneous value from NIDB data or comparable imports, and the importer supported its declared value with an affidavit and relevant documents. The amendment to Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 had no bearing on the dispute since no royalty or technical know-how fee was paid during the relevant period, so nothing was required to be added to the declared value. The request for remand was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449626