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
  • 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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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>Tribunal overturns Customs' valuation, upholds appellant's declared value in duty dispute</h1> <h3>Shree Plylam Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (I), Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a dispute over the declared value of imported goods, specifically medium density fiber boards. The Customs ... Sustainability of enhancement of value done under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - Import of medium density fiber boards - Transaction value under Rule 4 ibid rejected - Value enhanced on the basis of value noted for contemporaneous imports - Held that :- the learned counsel placed on record a bill of entry filed at Chennai where the same value was declared and was accepted by the Customs.Also, there are number of contemporaneous imports at higher values, but the details of those contemporary imports have not been disclosed. Moreover, the observation in the order-in-original that the contemporary imports varied from USD 160/- to USD 220/- per CBM, but the adjudicating authority has ignored the evidence produced by the appellant that the value of USD 130/- and USD 140/- were also accepted by the Customs. Moreover, the copies of bill of entry and invoices relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not supplied to the appellant. The names of the importers are also missing; the quantity is not mentioned and the size, grade and quality are also absent. The unit price which is the most important factor is missing and, therefore, the order of the adjudicating authority is completely weak and not reliable. Also, no evidence led by the Revenue to counter the values declared by the appellant. Therefore, by considering the various case laws, the value of per CBM declared by the appellant as USD 130/- should be accepted as the transaction value. Consequently, the enhancement of the value made by the lower authorities is not sustainable in law. Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief Issues:- Dispute over the declared value of imported goods- Application of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988- Comparison with contemporaneous imports- Reliance on legal precedents for determining transaction valueAnalysis:The appeal concerned a dispute regarding the declared value of imported medium density fiber boards. The appellant imported two consignments from a Malaysian supplier, with the declared value at USD 130/- per CBM. The Customs enhanced the value to USD 180/- per CBM, leading to a duty dispute. The appellant contended that the transaction was at arm's length, supported by an irrevocable Letter of Credit, and the declared value was negotiated based on international trends. The appellant provided evidence, including the manufacturer's invoice and past Customs acceptance of values. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the enhanced value, citing contemporaneous imports at higher values.The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 were applied, specifically Rule 5, which mandates the lowest value among multiple values to determine imported goods' value. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Customs' handling of contemporaneous import values, as details were not disclosed, and relevant evidence was ignored. The appellant's evidence, such as bill of entry and invoices, was not fully considered, lacking crucial details like importers' names, quantity, and unit price. The Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's order weak and unreliable due to these deficiencies.Legal precedents were cited by the appellant to support their argument that the declared value should be accepted as the transaction value when found genuine, despite higher contemporaneous imports. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the value considered for comparison should be the declared value without departmental loading. Notably, the Revenue failed to provide evidence countering the appellant's declared values. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the enhanced value determination and providing consequential relief as necessary.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of genuine transaction values and proper application of Customs Valuation Rules. The decision highlighted the need for transparency and consistency in evaluating imported goods' values, ultimately upholding the appellant's declared value of USD 130/- per CBM.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found