https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45925 A subsequent private settlement and revised invoice did not justify reopening the original customs valuation, because the initial assessment was undisputed and the later testing was not shown to have been conducted in the presence of customs authorities. The revised agreement itself stated that it was entered into to avoid litigation and without any admission of liability by the supplier, so it did not amount to accepted evidence of diminution in value for customs purposes. The claim for refund or reassessment on that basis was rejected, and the Tribunal's order was upheld. en-us Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:59:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45925 A subsequent private settlement and revised invoice did not justify reopening the original customs valuation, because the initial assessment was undisputed and the later testing was not shown to have been conducted in the presence of customs authorities. The revised agreement itself stated that it was entered into to avoid litigation and without any admission of liability by the supplier, so it did not amount to accepted evidence of diminution in value for customs purposes. The claim for refund or reassessment on that basis was rejected, and the Tribunal's order was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 03 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45925