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>CESTAT rules on misdeclaration of imported goods value, emphasizing GBV over NBV for accurate assessment</h1> <h3>SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (ADJ.), MUMBAI</h3> SCHLUMBERGER ASIA SERVICES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (ADJ.), MUMBAI - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 207 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Valuation of imported goods, misdeclaration of value, suppression of facts, imposition of penalty, confiscation of goods, limitation periodThe judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a case where M/s. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. imported high tech oil exploration tools, declaring an assessable value lower than the actual value. The issue revolved around the valuation of the imported goods, misdeclaration of value, suppression of facts, imposition of penalty, confiscation of goods, and the application of the limitation period.The Tribunal found that the appellants' argument that the value of the entire unit could not be represented by the value of individual items was not tenable. They determined that the Gross Book Value (GBV) shown in the Fixed Assets Report (FAR) was the assessable value, rejecting the argument for adopting the Net Book Value (NBV) due to depreciation. However, they acknowledged the appellants' right to claim depreciation on the imported used items.Regarding the limitation period, the Tribunal upheld the extended period of limitation due to the appellants providing consolidated value for the imported unit while in other cases, they had provided values of individual items. This difference indicated a suppression of facts regarding the value of the imported goods to evade duty payment.The Tribunal remanded the case for re-quantification of duty, considering depreciation, and left the imposition of penalty for fresh determination by the Commissioner. They upheld the confiscation of goods but directed the re-determination of the redemption fine after establishing the correct duty liability. The Commissioner was instructed to issue fresh orders after allowing the importers a chance to present details regarding the purchase dates of the imported items.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing the need for a re-evaluation of duty, penalty determination, and redemption fine calculation based on the correct valuation and depreciation considerations.
TaxTMI 