TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Tribunal Overturns Value Increase Decision in Favor of Appellants</h1> <h3>GAITRI EXPORT Versus COMMR. OF CUS., ICD, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI</h3> GAITRI EXPORT Versus COMMR. OF CUS., ICD, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 837 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Declaration of value of imported goods2. Enhancement of value by customs authorities3. Challenge of acceptance of enhanced value4. Discrepancy in value determination by customs authoritiesAnalysis:The case involved an appeal against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi regarding the declaration of the value of imported acrylic sheets by the Appellants at the rate of US $ 450 PMT. The customs authorities believed the value was misdeclared and enhanced it to US $ 700 PMT, leading to a request for provisional release of the goods by the Appellants.The main contention of the Appellants was that there was no valid basis for the enhancement of the goods' value. They argued that previous imports of similar goods had been accepted at the declared price of US $ 450 PMT by the Revenue authorities. The Appellants presented two orders from the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, supporting their claim.Additionally, the Appellants disputed the Adjudicating Authority's claim that their representative had accepted the enhanced value of the goods. Although this challenge was brought before the Commissioner (Appeals), no specific finding was provided in the impugned order regarding this issue.The Appellants had declared the value of the goods at US $ 450 PMT, which had been accepted in previous imports as per orders from the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar. The customs authorities justified the enhancement based on imports made by other importers at a higher value. However, neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) provided any evidence, such as a bill of entry, to support the enhanced value determination. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal found the enhancement to be unfounded and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the Appellants.
TaxTMI 