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 the declared transaction value of the imported old and used photocopier machines could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of Chartered Engineer certificates in the absence of positive evidence of undervaluation; (ii) whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were liable to be reduced to 10% and 5% of the value or upheld.
Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported old and used photocopier machines could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of Chartered Engineer certificates in the absence of positive evidence of undervaluation.
Analysis: One view held that the declared invoice value was supported by the supplier's documents and could not be displaced merely because multiple Chartered Engineer certificates gave different estimates, especially when the Revenue had not produced tangible evidence of extra consideration or any contemporaneous material showing the declared value to be incorrect. The contrary view treated the proved misdeclaration of description and the surrounding circumstances of import without licence as sufficient to sustain the enhanced valuation and the adjudication findings.
Conclusion: The issue remained unresolved between the two opinions, with one member favouring acceptance of the declared transaction value and the other favouring the enhanced value.
Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were liable to be reduced to 10% and 5% of the value or upheld.
Analysis: One view followed earlier Tribunal decisions and held that redemption fine and penalty should be brought down to 10% and 5% respectively, relying on consistent precedent and the need for objective exercise of discretion. The other view held that such reduction could not be treated as a benchmark and that the facts of misdeclaration and unlicensed import warranted confirmation of the adjudication consequences, without any mechanical reduction.
Conclusion: The issue also remained unresolved, with one member reducing the monetary consequences and the other upholding the Commissioner's order.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was decided by difference of opinion on both valuation and consequential confiscation-related relief, and no final unanimous outcome emerges from the text.
Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced in the absence of tangible evidence of undervaluation, while the quantum of redemption fine and penalty must be determined on the facts of each case and cannot be fixed by a rigid standard formula.
TaxTMI 
