https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89432 CESTAT remanded the case involving 19 imported antique items, finding that: (1) the items were not prohibited goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962, as no verification was conducted with Swiss authorities; (2) transaction value rejection was partially justified due to misdeclaration, but valuation methodology was flawed; (3) the Commissioner erroneously determined assessable value solely on expert committee opinion without considering comparable international auction prices as per Rules 4 & 5 of CVR 2007. The appellate tribunal set aside the original order and directed the adjudicating authority to reassess the goods' value, redemption fine, and penalty, taking into account the appellant's auction price evidence. en-us Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:04 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89432 CESTAT remanded the case involving 19 imported antique items, finding that: (1) the items were not prohibited goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962, as no verification was conducted with Swiss authorities; (2) transaction value rejection was partially justified due to misdeclaration, but valuation methodology was flawed; (3) the Commissioner erroneously determined assessable value solely on expert committee opinion without considering comparable international auction prices as per Rules 4 & 5 of CVR 2007. The appellate tribunal set aside the original order and directed the adjudicating authority to reassess the goods' value, redemption fine, and penalty, taking into account the appellant's auction price evidence. Highlights Customs Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:04 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89432