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: (i) Whether confiscation of the imported goods could be sustained without giving an option of redemption under the Customs Act; (ii) Whether the redetermination of assessable value based on an unverified market survey, ignoring contemporaneous import evidence, could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether confiscation of the imported goods could be sustained without giving an option of redemption under the Customs Act.
Analysis: The importer was declared in the import documents, and the goods were not prohibited goods. The definition of importer under the Customs Act is wide enough to include the person holding himself out as importer. Once the goods were seized from the importer's possession or were already under customs control, the adjudicating authority was required to act in accordance with the statutory mandate governing confiscation of non-prohibited goods and consider redemption in lieu of confiscation.
Conclusion: The confiscation order, insofar as it denied an option of redemption, was not sustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether the redetermination of assessable value based on an unverified market survey, ignoring contemporaneous import evidence, could be sustained.
Analysis: The record showed that contemporaneous import documents had been produced and taken on record during the personal hearing, but the impugned order did not deal with them. The valuation was instead based on a market survey sheet that did not disclose the basis, source, or nature of the comparable goods. An assessment founded on such incomplete material could not be upheld without proper consideration of the evidence on record.
Conclusion: The redetermined value was not legally sustainable and required fresh consideration.
Final Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication with consideration of the evidence already on record and after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation of non-prohibited imported goods cannot be sustained without affording the statutorily mandated redemption option, and valuation cannot rest on an unverified survey while ignoring contemporaneous import evidence taken on record.
TaxTMI 
