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>Appellate Tribunal overturns enhanced valuation of PU Coated Fabric imports, mandates reassessment based on contemporaneous data.</h1> <h3>KVS TRADERS, AK FASHIONS and KUMAR IMPEX Versus C.C. -JAMNAGAR (PREV)</h3> KVS TRADERS, AK FASHIONS and KUMAR IMPEX Versus C.C. -JAMNAGAR (PREV) - 2023 (385) E.L.T. 390 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:The issues involved in this case are the rejection of declared transaction value by the Appellant and the subsequent enhancement of assessment value by the authorities without passing a speaking order.Issue 1: Rejection of Declared Transaction ValueThe Appellant had imported 'PU Coated Fabric' from China and declared the transaction value as USD 0.82 per square meter, which was rejected. The Assessing officer questioned the low value compared to NIDB data of similar imports and contemporaneous imports at the same port. The Appellant agreed to assess the value as per group practice to avoid demurrage and detention charges. However, the value declared in the bills of entry was rejected, and the value was enhanced without a speaking order. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back for a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 2: Legal Considerations and Case LawThe Original Adjudicating Authority relied on various reports and instructions to determine the average price of USD 0.86 for PU Coated Fabric. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, citing cases where once the enhanced value is accepted and duty is paid, the assessment cannot be challenged. However, the Appellant argued that the revised valuation was accepted under duress to avoid detention charges, not voluntarily. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the case laws cited apply to voluntary acceptance of enhanced value, not cases with apparent protest. The rejection of declared value should be based on contemporaneous imports, not just reports from authorities.Decision:The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the rejection of declared value should be based on contemporaneous imports, not just reports from authorities. The appeals by the Appellant were allowed, and the impugned order was not upheld.
TaxTMI 