https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780921 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the original orders that had rejected the transaction value, enhanced assessed value, imposed confiscation, and demanded differential duty with interest and penalty. The Tribunal found the Department failed to prove undervaluation or provide comparable-import evidence, improperly relied on insurance/proforma documents and retracted statements, and issued an SCN with incurable lacunae including unsupportable valuation ratios and flawed joint demands. Contemporaneous import evidence for the appellant stood uncontroverted, so the benefit of doubt favored the appellant and the impugned orders were quashed. en-us Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2025 11:07:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780921 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal, setting aside the original orders that had rejected the transaction value, enhanced assessed value, imposed confiscation, and demanded differential duty with interest and penalty. The Tribunal found the Department failed to prove undervaluation or provide comparable-import evidence, improperly relied on insurance/proforma documents and retracted statements, and issued an SCN with incurable lacunae including unsupportable valuation ratios and flawed joint demands. Contemporaneous import evidence for the appellant stood uncontroverted, so the benefit of doubt favored the appellant and the impugned orders were quashed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780921