TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of imported cosmetics could be rejected and the assessable value enhanced by resort to Rule 8, despite contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods cleared at Chennai Customs House.
Analysis: The accepted valuation was based on contemporaneous import data for identical or similar goods cleared at Chennai Customs House at or about the same time. The objection that such imports had to be from the same port of import was held to have no legal basis. In the presence of contemporaneous values for comparable goods and no infirmity in the material relied upon, the declared transaction value could not be displaced in favour of an enhanced value under Rule 8. The decision also accepted that valuation ought to proceed on the basis of the comparative rules governing transaction value and comparable imports rather than by an unsupported resort to enhancement.
Conclusion: The challenge to the acceptance of the declared value failed, and the rejection of the enhanced valuation was upheld in favour of the importers.
Ratio Decidendi: Contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods are a valid basis for customs valuation, and the declared transaction value cannot be rejected for enhancement unless there is lawful justification to disregard such comparable import data.
TaxTMI 
