https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783723 Rejection of declared transaction value and enhancement of assessable value was held unsustainable because, under s.14 Customs Act read with the Valuation Rules, the department bears the onus to displace declared value with cogent evidence such as contemporaneous imports of identical/similar goods and proof of extra remittance; reliance on India-based raw material prices and unsubstantiated brand assumptions, without comparable import data or reasons under Rule 4(2), vitiated the valuation, consequentially rendering confiscation under s.111(m) and penalty under s.112 untenable. Denial of natural justice was found since the importer was not confronted with material for enhancement and no proper written notice/adjudication within the statutory timeline followed seizure, so the adjudication was invalid. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783723 Rejection of declared transaction value and enhancement of assessable value was held unsustainable because, under s.14 Customs Act read with the Valuation Rules, the department bears the onus to displace declared value with cogent evidence such as contemporaneous imports of identical/similar goods and proof of extra remittance; reliance on India-based raw material prices and unsubstantiated brand assumptions, without comparable import data or reasons under Rule 4(2), vitiated the valuation, consequentially rendering confiscation under s.111(m) and penalty under s.112 untenable. Denial of natural justice was found since the importer was not confronted with material for enhancement and no proper written notice/adjudication within the statutory timeline followed seizure, so the adjudication was invalid. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783723