https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754901 CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of appellants who imported perfumes and deodorants, rejecting department's attempt to determine transaction value based on MRP rather than declared invoice value. The tribunal held that transaction value should be determined from documents between parties and payments through approved banking channels per Section 14 and Rule 3(1). Department could not reject declared value without proper grounds under Section 17(4). Comparison with retail transactions was inappropriate as appellants operated wholesale business at different commercial level. MRP-based valuation lacks statutory basis for customs duty computation. As importers/wholesalers under Drugs and Cosmetics statute, appellants were outside Legal Metrology Act purview. Impugned order dated 09.07.2020 set aside entirely; appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754901 CESTAT Mumbai ruled in favor of appellants who imported perfumes and deodorants, rejecting department's attempt to determine transaction value based on MRP rather than declared invoice value. The tribunal held that transaction value should be determined from documents between parties and payments through approved banking channels per Section 14 and Rule 3(1). Department could not reject declared value without proper grounds under Section 17(4). Comparison with retail transactions was inappropriate as appellants operated wholesale business at different commercial level. MRP-based valuation lacks statutory basis for customs duty computation. As importers/wholesalers under Drugs and Cosmetics statute, appellants were outside Legal Metrology Act purview. Impugned order dated 09.07.2020 set aside entirely; appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754901