TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether the enhanced assessable value of the imported old and used worn clothing could be sustained on the basis of NIDB data in the absence of contemporaneous imports or corroborative evidence; and (ii) whether the reduction of redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% respectively required interference.
Issue (i): Whether the enhanced assessable value of the imported old and used worn clothing could be sustained on the basis of NIDB data in the absence of contemporaneous imports or corroborative evidence.
Analysis: The goods were imported during a period when the item was restricted for import, and the record did not show any available market price for ascertaining the import value. In such circumstances, NIDB data by itself could not form a valid basis for enhancement of declared value unless supported by corroborative evidence or contemporaneous imports. The rejection of the enhanced value by the lower appellate authority was therefore found justified.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the Revenue and in favour of the importer.
Issue (ii): Whether the reduction of redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% respectively required interference.
Analysis: The reduction was supported by the absence of evidence showing payment over and above the declared value and by reliance on prior judicial and administrative guidance. No infirmity was found in the lower appellate authority's approach in scaling down the redemption fine and penalty.
Conclusion: The issue is decided against the Revenue and in favour of the importer.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld in full and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Declared import value cannot be enhanced merely on the basis of NIDB data without contemporaneous imports or corroborative evidence, and a reduction in fine and penalty will not be interfered with where the record does not establish undervaluation beyond the declared price.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
