TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the declared assessable value of the imported car was liable to be rejected and the car confiscated for misdeclaration under the Customs law; (ii) whether the car, though registered abroad before importation, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
Issue (i): whether the declared assessable value of the imported car was liable to be rejected and the car confiscated for misdeclaration under the Customs law.
Analysis: The imported vehicle was purchased from a concern owned by the appellant's brother, and the financial trail showed transfers between the brother's account and the appellant's account for the payment of the car. The available invoice was confirmed by the manufacturer, while the appellant failed to produce any contrary original invoice or reliable evidence to displace the Revenue's valuation. In these circumstances, the supplier and importer were treated as related persons and the declared value was held not to represent the correct transaction value. Once under-valuation and suppression of the true invoice were established, confiscation under the customs provision dealing with misdeclaration of value was attracted.
Conclusion: The declared value was correctly rejected and confiscation for misdeclaration was upheld.
Issue (ii): whether the car, though registered abroad before importation, was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
Analysis: The odometer reading showed zero usage, indicating that the vehicle was new. The pre-import registration in the foreign country was explained as having been done only to complete export formalities, and the Board's circular clarified that such registration would not by itself defeat the exemption where the vehicle was intended for export and had not been used. On that basis, the registration abroad was not treated as a bar to the exemption.
Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
Final Conclusion: The valuation and confiscation findings were sustained, but the exemption benefit was allowed, resulting in a partly favourable outcome for the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the importer and supplier are related and the importer fails to rebut a contemporaneous invoice confirmed by the manufacturer, the declared import value can be rejected and misdeclaration established; pre-export foreign registration does not deny a new vehicle exemption when the registration was only for export formalities and the vehicle was not used.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
