https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50815 Declared transaction value of imported ball bearings could not be rejected merely because the department relied on prices of allegedly comparable branded goods. The comparison goods were from a different manufacturer, with a different trade mark and brand name, and were not shown to be comparable in quality, quantity, or commercial attributes. In the absence of reliable contemporaneous evidence of like goods imported under comparable conditions, the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act could not be displaced under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and Rule 4(2) did not apply. The declared value was therefore accepted and the contrary valuation was set aside. en-us Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:12:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50815 Declared transaction value of imported ball bearings could not be rejected merely because the department relied on prices of allegedly comparable branded goods. The comparison goods were from a different manufacturer, with a different trade mark and brand name, and were not shown to be comparable in quality, quantity, or commercial attributes. In the absence of reliable contemporaneous evidence of like goods imported under comparable conditions, the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act could not be displaced under Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and Rule 4(2) did not apply. The declared value was therefore accepted and the contrary valuation was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50815