TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Kolkata Upholds Department's Valuation of Imported Goods</h1> <h3>TOPLANE Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA</h3> TOPLANE Versus COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), KOLKATA - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 95 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues: Valuation of imported goods - Comparison with contemporaneous imports - Application of Customs Valuation Rules - Rejection of declared value - Best judgment method of valuationIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata, the issue revolved around the valuation of 2,00,000 pieces of HCG Pregnancy Test Strip imported from China by the appellants against a specific Bill of Entry. The appellants claimed the assessment at a declared value of US $ 0.021 per piece, while the Department re-determined the value at US $ 0.09 per piece. The appellants argued that the Department's valuation was based on a different type of product, Pregnancy Test Card, and thus not comparable. The appellants also cited various case laws in support of their case and argued against relying on internet prices for valuation evidence.The Department found the declared price by the appellants abnormally low compared to similar imports, leading to doubts about the accuracy of the declared value. The Department justified its valuation based on Customs Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 10A, to reject the declared value. The Department emphasized the need for collecting duty on the proper value of goods and not an under-declared value. They also presented evidence of the market price of the same product from the same manufacturer in the local market to support their valuation.The Tribunal acknowledged the Department's use of Rule 10A for rejecting the declared value, citing the rule's purpose to address gross mis-declaration affecting Customs duties. The Tribunal agreed that doubts about the accuracy of the declared value justified its rejection, allowing the Department to use other valuation methods under the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found the Department's best judgment method of valuation under Rule 8 reasonable, considering the market price of similar goods from the same manufacturer.Regarding the comparison of different sizes of the product, the Tribunal noted that the manufacturer quoted the same price for various sizes, indicating price consistency. The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' reliance on a Chartered Accountant's Certificate for valuation, as it was not submitted earlier and remained unverified. Based on these findings, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the Department's valuation order.
TaxTMI 