TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether the declared transaction value of related-party imports could be rejected merely for want of comparison with NIDB data and absence of further corroborative material.
Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act and Rules 3 and 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 provide that transaction value is the starting point for valuation and, in related-party cases, it can be rejected only when the proper officer has cogent reason to doubt its truth or accuracy and that doubt is supported by evidence. The imported goods had earlier been examined under the special valuation procedure, and the importer had furnished detailed information, agreements, costing data, financial statements, invoices and supporting reports. The Rules do not make comparison with NIDB data mandatory. In the absence of objective evidence showing that the relationship influenced the price, mere suspicion or a bare insistence on NIDB comparison was insufficient to displace the declared value.
Conclusion: The rejection of the declared transaction value was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Declared transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules can be rejected only on the basis of cogent evidence creating reasonable doubt; in related-party imports, mere suspicion or absence of NIDB comparison does not justify substitution of the transaction value.
TaxTMI 
