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 computer monitors could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's report; (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.
Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported old and used computer monitors could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of the Chartered Engineer's report.
Analysis: The imports consisted of assorted, old and used monitors of different origins and manufacturing years. No contemporaneous imports of identical goods at higher prices were shown, nor was there any evidence that any amount over and above the invoice value had been paid to the foreign supplier. The department did not establish the conditions under Rule 3(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and no proper rejection of the declared value was made under the valuation framework. In these circumstances, a marginal difference based only on a Chartered Engineer's report, particularly one not supplied to the importer and prepared on the basis of enquiry behind the importer's back, was insufficient to discard the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Conclusion: The declared transaction value was to be accepted, and the enhancement was not justified.
Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty required reduction.
Analysis: The goods were imported without the required licence and were therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the material on record showed that the profit margin was low, and the quantum of fine and penalty imposed was excessive in relation to the declared value and the circumstances of import. A deterrent sanction was warranted, but the amounts had to be proportionate.
Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced to 10% of the value and the penalty to 5% of the declared value.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on valuation and partially on consequential relief, while confiscation was sustained with moderated redemption fine and penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The declared transaction value of imported goods cannot be rejected merely on a marginal Chartered Engineer's estimate unless the statutory grounds for rejection under the valuation rules are established by tangible evidence.
TaxTMI 
