Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Customs Court Emphasizes Compliance over Norms for Valuation</h1> The court held that norms set by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, cannot be mechanically applied without considering genuine transaction values ... Whether assessment of duty under Section 17(2) read with the rules or provisional assessment under Section 18 is permissible solely on the basis of norms fixed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva ignoring genuine transaction value or the provisions of the rules – Held that:- norms cannot be mechanically applied, irrespective of genuineness of transaction value or value as may be arrived at as per statutory requirements. Normally, it is not for this Court to lay down the valuation in individual cases or to interfere with an order of assessment or appellate order on the issue of assessment of value but when valuation has not been fixed as per statutory provisions, petition allowed, matter remanded to the Assessing Officer Issues Involved1. Validity of the valuation of imported goods.2. Applicability of the norms fixed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.3. Compliance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.4. Requirement for a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis1. Validity of the Valuation of Imported GoodsThe petitioner challenged the order dated 11-1-2010, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh, which upheld the valuation of imported goods fixed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The valuation was based on norms set by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The petitioner argued that the valuation was arbitrary and ignored a report recommending a lower base price.2. Applicability of the Norms Fixed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava ShevaThe Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, had fixed the price of Zinc skimming/Zinc ash at 40% of the London Metal Exchange (LME) value if the metallic content was nil. This was contrary to a report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, which recommended a base price of 25% of the LME. The petitioner contended that the norms set by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, were arbitrary and should not have been mechanically applied.3. Compliance with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007The petitioner argued that under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the valuation should be based either on the transaction value or the lowest value in identical transactions. The rules also require that the valuation be reasonable. The petitioner claimed that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs did not consider the transaction value of identical goods and mechanically applied the norms set by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.4. Requirement for a Speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962The petitioner had previously filed CWP No. 16037 of 2008, seeking a regular assessment by a speaking order as required under Section 17(5) and Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court had directed the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, to finalize the matter expeditiously. However, the petitioner argued that the subsequent assessments did not comply with these statutory requirements.Judgment SummaryThe court examined whether the assessment of duty under Section 17(2) read with the rules or provisional assessment under Section 18 could be based solely on the norms fixed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, ignoring genuine transaction values or statutory provisions.The court held that norms set by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, could not be mechanically applied without considering the genuineness of the transaction value or statutory requirements. The court emphasized that it is not its role to determine valuation in individual cases but to ensure compliance with statutory provisions.The court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law, ensuring that the valuation is done as per statutory provisions and not merely based on the norms set by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found