TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was without jurisdiction because the issuing officer was not the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the declared invoice value of the imported goods could be rejected and the value determined on the basis of the Hong Kong Customs report, leading to confiscation, duty demand and penalty.
Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence was without jurisdiction because the issuing officer was not the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The objection had already been answered by the Larger Bench, which held that officers of the DRI appointed as Customs Officers could discharge the functions of a proper officer for purposes of Section 28(1). Once that ruling was available, the jurisdictional challenge to the notice no longer survived.
Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the notice was held to be validly issued.
Issue (ii): Whether the declared invoice value of the imported goods could be rejected and the value determined on the basis of the Hong Kong Customs report, leading to confiscation, duty demand and penalty.
Analysis: The report from the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department was an official communication obtained through investigative assistance, and its authenticity was never disputed. The report specifically confirmed that the supplier's export declarations and invoices were false and disclosed higher actual CIF values for the consignments. Since the transaction value declared by the importer was doubted and could not be accepted under Rule 4(1) of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988, the authority rightly proceeded sequentially through the valuation rules. When identical or similar goods and market-based data were not available under Rules 5, 6 and 7, the residual method was properly applied. The document from the foreign customs authority had sufficient evidentiary value to support the finding of under-valuation.
Conclusion: The rejection of the declared value and the consequential confiscation, duty demand and penalty were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both jurisdiction and valuation, and the impugned adjudication was sustained in full.
Ratio Decidendi: An official foreign customs report, when its authenticity is not disputed, can be relied upon to reject the declared transaction value under the customs valuation rules, and officers appointed as customs officers may act as proper officers for Section 28 proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
