https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47037 Withdrawal of earlier writ petitions to pursue rectification did not amount to affirmation of the Settlement Commission's original order, so the High Court was required to examine whether that order was lawful; its refusal to consider the merits was unjustified. The valuation issue also involved a pure question of law, namely whether Rule 5(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 required adoption of the lowest transaction value of identical goods where more than one such value was available. The matter was therefore to be considered on merits after remand. en-us Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47037 Withdrawal of earlier writ petitions to pursue rectification did not amount to affirmation of the Settlement Commission's original order, so the High Court was required to examine whether that order was lawful; its refusal to consider the merits was unjustified. The valuation issue also involved a pure question of law, namely whether Rule 5(3) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 required adoption of the lowest transaction value of identical goods where more than one such value was available. The matter was therefore to be considered on merits after remand. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47037