Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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>Writ petition challenging rejected transaction value dismissed based on Customs Valuation Rules</h1> <h3>UNIT TRADERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN</h3> UNIT TRADERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN - 2012 (281) E.L.T. 659 (Mad.) , 2012 (28) S.T.R. 433 (Mad.) Issues Involved:1. Under-invoicing of imported goods.2. Provisional release of goods.3. Rejection of declared transaction value.4. Violation of principles of natural justice.5. Determination of valuation under Customs Valuation Rules.6. Efficacy of alternative remedy.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Under-invoicing of Imported Goods:The petitioner, a partnership concern engaged in the import of various spices and dry fruits, imported ten consignments of white poppy seeds from Turkey. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs did not clear the goods, alleging that the importers were attempting to import the white poppy seeds by under-invoicing. The declared unit price was USD 1510/MT (FOB) or USD 1575/MT (CIF), whereas contemporaneous imports were cleared at USD 2700/MT.2. Provisional Release of Goods:The petitioner sought provisional release of the goods, which was initially rejected. However, the High Court directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the differential duty and furnish a personal bond for the balance. Upon compliance, the goods were provisionally released pending final adjudication.3. Rejection of Declared Transaction Value:The department issued a show cause notice proposing to reject the transaction value under Rule 10-A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, and to fix the unit price at USD 2700 PMT (CIF). The petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice but requested deferment of proceedings, which was not accepted. The final assessment was made at USD 2700 PMT (CIF).4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The petitioner contended that the impugned order violated the principles of natural justice as the documents forming the basis of the value assessment were not supplied. However, the court found that the show cause notice included a copy of the letter from M/s. Lakshmi Trading Company, Delhi, and other necessary documents were to be shown at the personal hearing. The petitioner chose not to demand any documents or file a reply, thus failing to avail the opportunity given.5. Determination of Valuation under Customs Valuation Rules:The petitioner argued that the valuation should be as per Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, which considers the transaction value of similar goods sold for export to India. The court noted that the valuation was based on the import value of similar goods by M/s. Lakshmi Trading Company, Delhi, at the same time, thus complying with Rule 6.6. Efficacy of Alternative Remedy:Though the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, the court considered the writ petition as it was admitted in 2007. The court emphasized that the statutory alternative remedy was available, but it was not proper to relegate the petitioner to this remedy at this stage.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The impugned order was held to be in consonance with Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules and the provisions of the Customs Act. The petitioner's failure to appear before the adjudicating authority and avail the opportunity given was noted. The court concluded that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, and the valuation was supported by positive unrebutted evidence.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found