https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787693 Declared transaction value under customs law could not be rejected merely on the basis of a single comparable import, especially where the importer produced a supply agreement for wholesale quantity and evidence of the same goods imported from the same supplier at the same declared price. The authorities had not shown, on cogent evidence, that identical-goods value was unavailable or that the valuation rules were applied sequentially on a proper factual basis, and the relied-upon comparable was at a different commercial level and quantity bracket. In the absence of proof of false invoicing, flowback, or deliberate undervaluation, enhancement of value failed. Once revaluation failed, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty also could not stand. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:17:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787693 Declared transaction value under customs law could not be rejected merely on the basis of a single comparable import, especially where the importer produced a supply agreement for wholesale quantity and evidence of the same goods imported from the same supplier at the same declared price. The authorities had not shown, on cogent evidence, that identical-goods value was unavailable or that the valuation rules were applied sequentially on a proper factual basis, and the relied-upon comparable was at a different commercial level and quantity bracket. In the absence of proof of false invoicing, flowback, or deliberate undervaluation, enhancement of value failed. Once revaluation failed, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty also could not stand. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787693