https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789549 Differential customs duty could not be fastened on an importer merely because authorised dealers later revised the retail sale price after import and clearance of the watches. The goods had been assessed on the declared retail sale price at import, and there was no evidence that the importer altered, tampered with, or knew of any later price change in the dealers' stock. The retail sale price valuation mechanism under section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and rule 5 of the 2008 Rules was therefore inapplicable. A statement under section 108 of the Customs Act was also insufficient without section 138B compliance, and the penalty under section 114A could not survive once the duty demand failed. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789549 Differential customs duty could not be fastened on an importer merely because authorised dealers later revised the retail sale price after import and clearance of the watches. The goods had been assessed on the declared retail sale price at import, and there was no evidence that the importer altered, tampered with, or knew of any later price change in the dealers' stock. The retail sale price valuation mechanism under section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and rule 5 of the 2008 Rules was therefore inapplicable. A statement under section 108 of the Customs Act was also insufficient without section 138B compliance, and the penalty under section 114A could not survive once the duty demand failed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789549