https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777047 CESTAT KOLKATA - AT allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements could not justify rejection of declared transaction value for imported carpets; contemporaneous evidence supported the declared value of blankets, so differential duty demand was set aside. Findings of undervaluation and misclassification were not sustained, therefore confiscation and redemption fine were quashed. Invocation of the extended limitation period and penalties under ss.112/114A of the Customs Act were held unjustified and set aside. The impugned order was vacated and the appeal disposed of in favour of the appellant. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2025 08:31:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777047 CESTAT KOLKATA - AT allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that pro forma invoices and uncorroborated statements could not justify rejection of declared transaction value for imported carpets; contemporaneous evidence supported the declared value of blankets, so differential duty demand was set aside. Findings of undervaluation and misclassification were not sustained, therefore confiscation and redemption fine were quashed. Invocation of the extended limitation period and penalties under ss.112/114A of the Customs Act were held unjustified and set aside. The impugned order was vacated and the appeal disposed of in favour of the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 18 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777047