TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether the declared import value could be discarded and loaded on the footing that the buyer and seller were related, and whether the impugned order imposing a 100% loading with future review and provisional features was ultra vires so as to require adoption of the invoiced transaction value for assessment.
Analysis: Relationship between buyer and seller was inferred only from the fact that the two companies had common directors. No further evidence was shown to establish mutuality of interest or that the relationship had influenced the price. The imported price was stated to be more than 100% of the manufacturer's selling price, and the manufacturer's letter indicated that the cost structure and composition details were not disclosed as trade secrets. In these circumstances, the loading adopted in the original order was found to be unsupported by reasoning or evidence. The order also attempted to keep the assessment open to future revision after three years and to shift the burden of furnishing material for repeated reassessment onto the importer, which was held to have no sanction in the statutory scheme and to travel beyond the powers conferred by the valuation rules.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside as ultra vires and the declared invoice price was directed to be adopted as the assessable value.
Ratio Decidendi: A declared import value cannot be rejected on a mere assertion of related-party status without evidence that the relationship influenced the price, and an assessment cannot be structured as an open-ended provisional arrangement unless supported by the statute.
TaxTMI 
