https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750750 Declared transaction value of imported copper cathodes could not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules merely because the bill of lading preceded the invoice date. The importer's explanation that price variation arose from the LME-linked trade mechanism, premium and backwardation or rollover cost was treated as normal in the trade and was not disproved by evidence. No allegation of non-banking payment or any other Rule 12 circumstance was established, and prior acceptance of loaded values in other clearances did not bar challenge because estoppel does not apply in taxation matters. In the absence of contemporaneous corroborative evidence, rejection of transaction value was unwarranted, so confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112(a) were unsustainable. en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750750 Declared transaction value of imported copper cathodes could not be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules merely because the bill of lading preceded the invoice date. The importer's explanation that price variation arose from the LME-linked trade mechanism, premium and backwardation or rollover cost was treated as normal in the trade and was not disproved by evidence. No allegation of non-banking payment or any other Rule 12 circumstance was established, and prior acceptance of loaded values in other clearances did not bar challenge because estoppel does not apply in taxation matters. In the absence of contemporaneous corroborative evidence, rejection of transaction value was unwarranted, so confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112(a) were unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750750