https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50738 Undervaluation cannot be sustained on seized papers alone unless the department proves contemporaneous imports of identical goods from the same country of origin and, on a preponderance of probability, shows that the declared transaction value is false. Here, the seized papers were treated only as account materials, not reliable evidence of contemporaneous import value. As the burden under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules was not discharged, the proposed enhancement of value and the penalty under Section 112(a) could not stand, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Sep 2010 10:28:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50738 Undervaluation cannot be sustained on seized papers alone unless the department proves contemporaneous imports of identical goods from the same country of origin and, on a preponderance of probability, shows that the declared transaction value is false. Here, the seized papers were treated only as account materials, not reliable evidence of contemporaneous import value. As the burden under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules was not discharged, the proposed enhancement of value and the penalty under Section 112(a) could not stand, and the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50738