https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53739 Declared transaction value of imported vitrified tiles could not be rejected under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 because the department did not show artificial pricing, relied on comparisons not based on identical or comparable goods, and bypassed the prescribed sequential valuation method. A familial connection between persons linked to the overseas seller and a director of the importer did not, by itself, establish the control or relationship required for valuation purposes, so the related-person objection failed. Once enhancement of value failed, confiscation, differential duty and penalties founded on that valuation also could not survive. The impugned order was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:05:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53739 Declared transaction value of imported vitrified tiles could not be rejected under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 because the department did not show artificial pricing, relied on comparisons not based on identical or comparable goods, and bypassed the prescribed sequential valuation method. A familial connection between persons linked to the overseas seller and a director of the importer did not, by itself, establish the control or relationship required for valuation purposes, so the related-person objection failed. Once enhancement of value failed, confiscation, differential duty and penalties founded on that valuation also could not survive. The impugned order was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53739