https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768979 Declared transaction value for imported melamine could not be rejected for anti-dumping duty merely on the basis of NIDB and ICIS data, contemporaneous import prices, or suspicion of overvaluation. In the absence of direct evidence such as parallel invoices, corroborative communications, extra remittances, or other tangible proof of misdeclaration or suppression, the valuation rules did not permit re-determination of value for anti-dumping purposes. A value accepted for basic customs duty could not be displaced on a different basis without legally acceptable evidence. The declared value therefore remained binding, and the demand founded on the re-determined value was unsustainable. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2025 08:37:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768979 Declared transaction value for imported melamine could not be rejected for anti-dumping duty merely on the basis of NIDB and ICIS data, contemporaneous import prices, or suspicion of overvaluation. In the absence of direct evidence such as parallel invoices, corroborative communications, extra remittances, or other tangible proof of misdeclaration or suppression, the valuation rules did not permit re-determination of value for anti-dumping purposes. A value accepted for basic customs duty could not be displaced on a different basis without legally acceptable evidence. The declared value therefore remained binding, and the demand founded on the re-determined value was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768979