https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89774 CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding under-valuation of imported silk fabrics from China. Revenue rejected transaction value under Rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules, relying on contemporaneous imports by other importers and director's statement under Section 108 Customs Act. CESTAT held Revenue failed to discharge burden of proving under-valuation with cogent evidence. Department could not establish identical goods comparison as documents lacked specifications regarding grammage, grade, and quality of weave. Director's statement inadmissible without following Section 138B procedure. Transaction value rejection unjustified; re-determination under Rule 5 unnecessary. Redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. Commissioner's order dated 06.02.2009 set aside. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:49 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89774 CESTAT allowed appellant's appeal regarding under-valuation of imported silk fabrics from China. Revenue rejected transaction value under Rule 10A of 1988 Valuation Rules, relying on contemporaneous imports by other importers and director's statement under Section 108 Customs Act. CESTAT held Revenue failed to discharge burden of proving under-valuation with cogent evidence. Department could not establish identical goods comparison as documents lacked specifications regarding grammage, grade, and quality of weave. Director's statement inadmissible without following Section 138B procedure. Transaction value rejection unjustified; re-determination under Rule 5 unnecessary. Redemption fine and penalty under Section 114A unsustainable. Commissioner's order dated 06.02.2009 set aside. Highlights Customs Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:23:49 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89774