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>Tribunal Overturns Goods Value Enhancement, Nullifies Penalties Due to Rectified Labeling and Insufficient Evidence.</h1> <h3>M/s. Unik Traders Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin</h3> M/s. Unik Traders Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - 2023 (386) E.L.T. 759 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:1. Enhancement of value and demand of differential duty.2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalties for violations of provisions of the PFA Act and PFA Rules.Summary:Enhancement of Value and Demand of Differential Duty:The adjudicating authority enhanced the value of the imported 'Monosodium Glutamate' based on NIDB data, which was contested by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the enhancement was done without providing complete details of contemporaneous imports, such as the country of origin and the name of the supplier. The Tribunal cited previous decisions, emphasizing that NIDB data alone cannot justify the rejection of declared value. Consequently, the Tribunal found insufficient reasons to reject the transaction value and set aside the demand for differential duty.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalties:The adjudicating authority held that the goods were liable for confiscation due to non-compliance with the PFA Act and PFA Rules, specifically the absence of the manufacturer's details on the packages. The appellant argued that the PFA Act had been repealed and replaced by the FSS Act, 2006, which should apply. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court had directed the provisional release of goods after rectifying the deficiencies through repacking and relabelling under customs supervision. Given that the infractions were rectified, the Tribunal held that the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties could not be sustained and set them aside.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the lack of sufficient grounds for value enhancement and the rectification of labeling deficiencies as per the High Court's direction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
