https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794049 Undisclosed relatedness between importer and exporter created reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the declared transaction value, so rejection under Rule 10A was upheld. However, after rejection, customs valuation had to follow the prescribed sequential scheme, and Rule 8 could not be used on arbitrary percentages, fictitious bases, or inconsistent materials. The re-determination of value for multiple categories of goods therefore failed, and the consequential demands, confiscation, and penalties could not stand. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief. en-us Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:28:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794049 Undisclosed relatedness between importer and exporter created reasonable doubt about the truth and accuracy of the declared transaction value, so rejection under Rule 10A was upheld. However, after rejection, customs valuation had to follow the prescribed sequential scheme, and Rule 8 could not be used on arbitrary percentages, fictitious bases, or inconsistent materials. The re-determination of value for multiple categories of goods therefore failed, and the consequential demands, confiscation, and penalties could not stand. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794049