{"id":9480,"date":"2026-06-09T07:02:01","date_gmt":"2026-06-09T01:32:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?p=9480"},"modified":"2026-06-09T07:02:01","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T01:32:01","slug":"transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat","title":{"rendered":"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT"},"content":{"rendered":"<pre><strong>Case Details: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/latest-news-updates\/customs\/101010000000419298\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-based-on-unreliable-documents-ignoring-contemporaneous-imports-cestat\">Surya Prakash Bhandari vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai-II (2026) 38 Centax 341 (Tri.-Mad)<\/a><\/strong><\/pre>\n<h2><em>Judiciary and Counsel Details<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><strong>S\/Shri Ajayan T.V<\/strong>., Member (J) &amp; <strong>M. Ajit Kumar<\/strong>, Member (T)<\/li>\n<li><strong>Shri S. Venkatachalam<\/strong>, Adv., for the Appellant.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Shri Anoop Singh<\/strong>, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><em>Facts of the Case<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>Based on intelligence regarding undervaluation of imported self-adhesive tapes and related goods, the DRI conducted investigations covering imports made through Chennai and Cochin ports during January 2003 to June 2007. During searches, various documents, including insurance documents, shipping advices, proforma invoices, handwritten slips, and fax messages, were recovered. Relying on these documents and statements recorded during the investigation, the department alleged undervaluation of imported goods, rejected the declared transaction value, demanded differential customs duty along with interest and imposed penalties. The aggrieved parties challenged the adjudication orders before the Tribunal, while the Revenue filed an appeal seeking the imposition of a penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act.<\/p>\n<h2><em>CESTAT Held<\/em><\/h2>\n<p>The Tribunal held that the declared transaction value could not be rejected solely on the basis of proforma invoices, insurance documents, unsigned fax messages and unauthenticated handwritten slips, as such documents did not constitute reliable evidence of the actual transaction value. It further held that the retracted statements relied upon by the department were inadmissible in the absence of compliance with section 138B of the Customs Act and denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal also observed that contemporaneous import data produced by the appellants to support the declared value had been ignored by the adjudicating authority. Since undervaluation was not established through credible evidence or comparable imports, the rejection of the transaction value and the consequent duty demands were unsustainable. It was further held that no valid demand could be raised against a holder of a power of attorney without complying with section 147(3), read with section 28, of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the Revenue&#8217;s appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n<h2><em>List of Cases Cited<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(148)%20E.L.T.%20704%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">ABM International Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (148) E.L.T. 704 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2021%20(375)%20E.L.T.%20545%20(Del.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Additional Director General (Adjudication) v. Its My Name Pvt Ltd<\/a> \u2014 2021 (375) E.L.T. 545 (Del.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 22]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2021%20(378)%20E.L.T.%20155%20(Tri.-Ahmd)&amp;itemType=AP\">Agarwal Metals &amp; Alloys v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2021 (378) E.L.T. 155 (Tri.-Ahmd) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(151)%20E.L.T.%20330%20(Tri.-Bom).&amp;itemType=AP\">Auto and Hardware Enterprises v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2003 (151) E.L.T. 330 (Tri.-Bom). \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2013%20(294)%20E.L.T.%20353%20(Del.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Basudev Garg v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2017 (48) S.T.R. 427 (Del.) = 2013 (294) E.L.T. 353 (Del.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1994%20(72)%20E.L.T.%20660%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Biren Shah v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1994 (72) E.L.T. 660 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2007%20(217)%20E.L.T.%20570%20(Tri.-Ahmd)&amp;itemType=AP\">Brij Mohan Sood v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2007 (217) E.L.T. 570 (Tri.-Ahmd) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2000%20(121)%20E.L.T.%20788%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Chandrakant H. Sanghvi v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2000 (121) E.L.T. 788 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(162)%20E.L.T.%20992%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Collector of Customs v. Grover Imports<\/a> \u2014 2003 (162) E.L.T. 992 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1999%20(106)%20E.L.T.%209%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Collector of Customs v. Trivandrum Rubber Works Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 1999 (106) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 8, 34, 35]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2023)%206%20Centax%2014%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v Jeen Bhavani International<\/a> \u2014 (2023) 6 Centax 14 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 22]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(149)%20E.L.T.%201083%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Alif International<\/a> \u2014 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1083 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2024)%2016%20Centax%20504%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Junaid Judia<\/a> \u2014 (2024) 16 Centax 504 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 22]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2007%20(213)%20E.L.T.%20641%20(Bom.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Jupiter Exports<\/a> \u2014 2007 (213) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2006%20(206)%20E.L.T.%20548%20(Tri.-Mad)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Sahara Enterprises<\/a> \u2014 2006 (206) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Mad) \u2014 Relied on [Para 8, 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2019%20(365)%20E.L.T.%203%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd.<\/a> \u2014 2019 (365) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 13, 26]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(228)%20E.L.T.%20A29%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Commissioner v. Suyog Extrustions<\/a> \u2014 2008 (228) E.L.T. A29 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Para 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2003%20(159)%20E.L.T.%20851%20(Tri.-Cal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Deepak Enterprises v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2003 (159) E.L.T. 851 (Tri.-Cal) = 2003 (159) E.L.T. 851 (Tri. &#8211; Kolkata) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2007%20(209)%20E.L.T.%20459%20(Tri.-Cal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Eastern Exports and Imports Co. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2007 (209) E.L.T. 459 (Tri.-Cal) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2000%20(122)%20E.L.T.%20321%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 8, 12, 16, 26]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2007%20(214)%20E.L.T.%20298%20(Tri.-Mad)&amp;itemType=AP\">Euro Tech v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2007 (214) E.L.T. 298 (Tri.-Mad) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li>Exide Industries Limited v. Commissioner \u2014 Final Order No. 40664\/2025, dated 26-6-2025 by CESTAT, Chennai \u2014 Followed [Para 40]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(190)%20E.L.T.%20361%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Famous Textile v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (190) E.L.T. 361 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2016%20(339)%20E.L.T.%20209%20(P%26H.)&amp;itemType=AP\">G. Tech Industries v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 (P&amp;H.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2004%20(170)%20E.L.T.%20550%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">G.K. Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2004 (170) E.L.T. 550 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Relied on [Para 8, 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2025)%2036%20Centax%2041%20(Tri.-Mad)&amp;itemType=AP\">Geetham Steels Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2025) 36 Centax 41 (Tri.-Mad) \u2014 Relied on [Para 22]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2021%20(378)%20E.L.T.%20193%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">H.S. Chadha v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2021 (378) E.L.T. 193 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2004%20(166)%20E.L.T.%20407%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">J K Pharma v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2004 (166) E.L.T. 407 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1990%20(45)%20E.L.T.%209%20(Mad.)&amp;itemType=AP\">J.B. Trading Corporation v. Union of India<\/a> \u2014 1990 (45) E.L.T. 9 (Mad.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2023)%206%20Centax%2011%20(Tri.%20-%20Bom.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Jeen Bhavani International v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2023) 6 Centax 11 (Tri. &#8211; Bom.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 8, 22]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2024)%2016%20Centax%20503%20(Tri-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Junaid Kudia v Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2024) 16 Centax 503 (Tri-Bom) \u2014 Relied on [Para 22]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2001%20(131)%20E.L.T.%20147%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Jupiter Exports v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2001 (131) E.L.T. 147 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2001%20(132)%20E.L.T.%2093%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">K. Sons Overseas (I) P. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2001 (132) E.L.T. 93 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2024)%2017%20Centax%20205%20(Tri.%20-%20Ahmd.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Kiran Tax Fab Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2024) 17 Centax 205 (Tri. &#8211; Ahmd.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1992%20(62)%20E.L.T.%20613%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Laxmi Colour Lab. v. Collector of Customs<\/a> \u2014 1992 (62) E.L.T. 613 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li>Modern Bakers (Madras) Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner \u2014 Final Order No. 41033\/2025, dated 23-9-2025 by CESTAT, Chennai \u2014 Followed [Para 40]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2000%20(121)%20E.L.T.%20736%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Mohan Sales (India) v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2000 (121) E.L.T. 736 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2004%20(178)%20E.L.T.%20310%20(Tri.-Bang)&amp;itemType=AP\">Munna Gift Centre v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2004 (178) E.L.T. 310 (Tri.-Bang) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(191)%20E.L.T.%20732%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Neptune Steel Processors v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (191) E.L.T. 732 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=1986%20(23)%20E.L.T.%20507%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Orient Enterprises, New Delhi v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 1986 (23) E.L.T. 507 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Followed [Paras 8, 17]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2001%20(134)%20E.L.T.%20791%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Prashant Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2001 (134) E.L.T. 791 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(230)%20E.L.T.%20612%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Pro-Fashional Computers v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2008 (230) E.L.T. 612 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2001%20(131)%20E.L.T.%20200%20(Tri.-Cal)&amp;itemType=AP\">Puja Poly Plastics Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2001 (131) E.L.T. 200 (Tri.-Cal) \u2014 Relied on [Para 8, 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2013%20(294)%20E.L.T.%20463%20(Tri.%20-%20Del.)&amp;itemType=AP\">R.K. Soap and Oil Traders v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2013 (294) E.L.T. 463 (Tri. &#8211; Del.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2008%20(230)%20E.L.T.%20431%20(Tri.-Ahmd)&amp;itemType=AP\">Ramkrishna Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2008 (230) E.L.T. 431 (Tri.-Ahmd) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(190)%20E.L.T.%2043%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Ratinder Pal Singh Bhatia v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (190) E.L.T. 43 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2023)%2010%20Centax%20174%20(Tri.%20-%20Cal.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Rumen Dey v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2023) 10 Centax 174 (Tri. &#8211; Cal.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(183)%20E.L.T.%20273%20(Tri.-Bang)&amp;itemType=AP\">Selection Enterprises v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (183) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Bang) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(144)%20E.L.T.%20432%20(Tri.-Mad)&amp;itemType=AP\">Sheraton Overseas v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (144) E.L.T. 432 (Tri.-Mad) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2006%20(204)%20E.L.T.%20630%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Shimnit Machine Tools and Equipment Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2006 (204) E.L.T. 630 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(186)%20E.L.T.%20307%20(Tri.-Bang)&amp;itemType=AP\">Shree Sagarmatha Distributors (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (186) E.L.T. 307 (Tri.-Bang) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2025)%2033%20Centax%2086%20(Tri.%20-%20Chennai)&amp;itemType=AP\">Shree Vijayalakshmi Charitable Trust v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2025) 33 Centax 86 (Tri. &#8211; Chennai) \u2014 Followed [Para 40]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2000%20117%20E.L.T.%20538%20(SC)%20(S.C.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Sounds N. Images v. Collector<\/a> \u2014 2000 117 E.L.T. 538 (SC) (S.C.) \u2014 Relied on [Paras 8, 26]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=(2024)%2018%20Centax%20321%20(Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Suni Aidasani @ Vicky v. Principal Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 (2024) 18 Centax 321 (Del) \u2014 Relied on [Para 22]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2007%20(213)%20E.L.T.%20524%20(Tri.-Bom)&amp;itemType=AP\">Suyog Extrusions v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2007 (213) E.L.T. 524 (Tri.-Bom) \u2014 Relied on [Para 8, 16]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2013%20(295)%20E.L.T.%20195%20(Mad.)&amp;itemType=AP\">Thilagarathinam Match Works v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2013 (295) E.L.T. 195 (Mad.) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2005%20(186)%20E.L.T.%20135%20(Tri.-Del)&amp;itemType=AP\">Truwoods Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2005 (186) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.-Del) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(141)%20E.L.T.%20564%20(Tri.-Cal).&amp;itemType=AP\">V.K. Impex v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (141) E.L.T. 564 (Tri.-Cal). \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(147)%20E.L.T.%20924%20(Tri.-Mad)&amp;itemType=AP\">V.K. Vora v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (147) E.L.T. 924 (Tri.-Mad) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/search?searchData=2002%20(149)%20E.L.T.%20145%20(Tri.-Mad)&amp;itemType=AP\">Vintel Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner<\/a> \u2014 2002 (149) E.L.T. 145 (Tri.-Mad) \u2014 Referred [Para 8]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Case Details: Surya Prakash Bhandari vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai-II (2026)&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":9493,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[38,177,47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9480","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-customs","category-customs-news","category-custom-case-chronicles"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.9 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"CESTAT held that the customs transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of unreliable documents while ignoring contemporaneous imports.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"CESTAT held that the customs transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of unreliable documents while ignoring contemporaneous imports.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Centax-Blogs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-09T01:32:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"540\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Centax\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Centax\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Centax\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a\"},\"headline\":\"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-09T01:32:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat\"},\"wordCount\":1095,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Customs\",\"News\",\"Case Chronicles\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat\",\"name\":\"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-09T01:32:01+00:00\",\"description\":\"CESTAT held that the customs transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of unreliable documents while ignoring contemporaneous imports.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg\",\"width\":920,\"height\":540,\"caption\":\"Rejection of Customs Transaction Value\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Centax-Blogs\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Centax-Blogs\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp\",\"width\":536,\"height\":133,\"caption\":\"Centax-Blogs\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a\",\"name\":\"Centax\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Centax\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/author\/centax-editorial-team\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT","description":"CESTAT held that the customs transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of unreliable documents while ignoring contemporaneous imports.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT","og_description":"CESTAT held that the customs transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of unreliable documents while ignoring contemporaneous imports.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat","og_site_name":"Centax-Blogs","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia","article_published_time":"2026-06-09T01:32:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":920,"height":540,"url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Centax","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Centax","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat"},"author":{"name":"Centax","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a"},"headline":"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT","datePublished":"2026-06-09T01:32:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat"},"wordCount":1095,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg","articleSection":["Customs","News","Case Chronicles"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat","name":"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-09T01:32:01+00:00","description":"CESTAT held that the customs transaction value cannot be rejected on the basis of unreliable documents while ignoring contemporaneous imports.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1.-Transaction-Value-Cannot-Be-Rejected-on-Unreliable-Evidence-CESTAT.jpg","width":920,"height":540,"caption":"Rejection of Customs Transaction Value"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/transaction-value-cannot-be-rejected-on-unreliable-evidence-cestat#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Transaction Value Cannot Be Rejected on Unreliable Evidence | CESTAT"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/","name":"Centax-Blogs","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Centax-Blogs","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/CNETAX-LOGO-1.webp","width":536,"height":133,"caption":"Centax-Blogs"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/centaxindia"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/f4400180c72e79f30e22a263f2d8fd0a","name":"Centax","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/795c4221b76ac6ccc3cbba0cc63dd055?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Centax"},"url":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/author\/centax-editorial-team"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9480","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9480"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9480\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9484,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9480\/revisions\/9484"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9493"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9480"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9480"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.centaxonline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9480"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}