https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469904 Penalties under sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 require proof of a legally sustainable valuation exercise and evidence of the appellant's knowing participation in misdeclaration or use of false documents. The article notes that the re-determination of import value was unsustainable because the declared value was displaced by a method not authorised under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and the attempted correlation of sampling and analysis certificates was scientifically and legally flawed. As the alleged overvaluation, relationship, and bogus documents were not supported by reliable evidence linking the director to any act making the goods liable to confiscation, the penalties could not stand. en-us Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 20:43:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469904 Penalties under sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 require proof of a legally sustainable valuation exercise and evidence of the appellant's knowing participation in misdeclaration or use of false documents. The article notes that the re-determination of import value was unsustainable because the declared value was displaced by a method not authorised under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and the attempted correlation of sampling and analysis certificates was scientifically and legally flawed. As the alleged overvaluation, relationship, and bogus documents were not supported by reliable evidence linking the director to any act making the goods liable to confiscation, the penalties could not stand. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469904