https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53199 Declared transaction value for imported cameras could not be rejected merely because the importer did not produce the overseas manufacturer's invoice. The invoice was treated as a document outside the importer's control, so non-production alone was insufficient to discard the declared value. Reliance on alleged contemporaneous imports also failed because the compared goods were not shown to be identical in description, quality, and quantity, and the comparison did not properly account for bulk and smaller imports. In the absence of concrete evidence to displace the invoice value, re-determination of valuation was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jan 2019 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53199 Declared transaction value for imported cameras could not be rejected merely because the importer did not produce the overseas manufacturer's invoice. The invoice was treated as a document outside the importer's control, so non-production alone was insufficient to discard the declared value. Reliance on alleged contemporaneous imports also failed because the compared goods were not shown to be identical in description, quality, and quantity, and the comparison did not properly account for bulk and smaller imports. In the absence of concrete evidence to displace the invoice value, re-determination of valuation was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53199