https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773566 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging rejection of transaction value for imported silk fabrics from China. The Revenue failed to produce contemporaneous imports of identical goods to prove undervaluation, instead relying on inference from other importers' cases without establishing identical quality/grade. The statement under section 108 of Customs Act was inadmissible as section 138B procedure wasn't followed. The Commissioner incorrectly rejected transaction value under rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules without cogent evidence. Consequently, re-determination under rule 5, redemption fine, and penalty under section 114(A) were unsustainable. Order dated 06.02.2009 was set aside. en-us Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773566 CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal challenging rejection of transaction value for imported silk fabrics from China. The Revenue failed to produce contemporaneous imports of identical goods to prove undervaluation, instead relying on inference from other importers' cases without establishing identical quality/grade. The statement under section 108 of Customs Act was inadmissible as section 138B procedure wasn't followed. The Commissioner incorrectly rejected transaction value under rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules without cogent evidence. Consequently, re-determination under rule 5, redemption fine, and penalty under section 114(A) were unsustainable. Order dated 06.02.2009 was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773566