TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant in value declaration dispute, emphasizing adherence to pricing principles</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the appeals by the appellant challenging the Commissioner's orders enhancing the declared values of ... Valuation - enhancement of Transaction value - Held that: - A comparison of prices of goods of two distinct varieties, (i.e. nylon with polyester-nylon mix) and that too from two different countries is not permissible - the price adopted was not the actual import price but the price enhanced by the Department which has been reportedly accepted. Such an enhanced price can not be treated as transaction value of similar goods sought to be compared. We have not been shown any evidence of actual higher import price of similar goods which can be adopted for the present import - enhancement of value not sustainable - appeal allowed. Issues:- Enhancement of declared value of imported goods by the Commissioner based on internet quotations and previous import value.- Challenge to the Commissioner's orders by the appellant on grounds of different material composition and country of origin.- Consideration of principles for rejecting declared transaction value and adopting contemporaneous value.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved three appeals by the same appellant concerning the enhancement of declared values of imported Hooks and Loops (Velcro Tapes) by the Commissioner. The appellant declared values per 25 pair metres for different varieties, which were subsequently increased by the Commissioner based on internet quotations and a previous import value by another entity. The appellant challenged these orders on the grounds that the internet quotations were for costlier nylon Velcro tapes, while they imported a polyester-nylon mix variety from China. They also argued that no contemporaneous import price of similar goods was considered, and the price adopted was not the actual import price but an enhanced price accepted by the Department. The appellant highlighted the lack of clarity regarding the nature and composition of the goods imported by the other entity used for comparison.During the hearing, the Department's representative reiterated the Commissioner's findings but acknowledged that the internet quotations referred to nylon Velcro Tapes, not the polyester-nylon mix variety imported by the appellant. The Tribunal carefully evaluated the submissions and emphasized the well-settled principles for rejecting declared transaction values and adopting contemporaneous values. It was noted that comparing prices of goods of different varieties and from different countries was impermissible. The Tribunal emphasized that the enhanced price accepted by the Department could not be considered the transaction value of similar goods for comparison. Additionally, there was a lack of evidence presented to support the adoption of an actual higher import price for similar goods. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the orders of the Commissioner enhancing the assessable value could not be upheld.In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by the Tribunal, providing the appellant with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to established principles when rejecting declared values and emphasized the necessity of considering actual import prices for similar goods in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
