https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784684 Reasonable doubt arose under the Customs Valuation Rules because the declared import values were substantially below contemporaneous import values, and the importer's online reply consenting to rejection of the declared value negated any claim of coercion; accordingly, rejection of transaction value was sustained. Upon rejection, re-determination was correctly undertaken under Rule 5 on the basis of transaction value of similar goods, as identical-goods data under Rule 4 was not available; the enhanced assessable value was upheld. However, as the importer had truthfully declared its transaction value in the Bill of Entry and could not predict a later enhancement, the goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(m), and redemption fine and penalty under s.112 were set aside. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 17:57:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784684 Reasonable doubt arose under the Customs Valuation Rules because the declared import values were substantially below contemporaneous import values, and the importer's online reply consenting to rejection of the declared value negated any claim of coercion; accordingly, rejection of transaction value was sustained. Upon rejection, re-determination was correctly undertaken under Rule 5 on the basis of transaction value of similar goods, as identical-goods data under Rule 4 was not available; the enhanced assessable value was upheld. However, as the importer had truthfully declared its transaction value in the Bill of Entry and could not predict a later enhancement, the goods were not liable to confiscation under s.111(m), and redemption fine and penalty under s.112 were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784684