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>Department appeals dismissed for unproven tuner valuation and penalty without proper evidence under Rule 8</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), MUMBAI Versus M/s GANPATI OVERSEAS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA & ANR.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), MUMBAI Versus M/s GANPATI OVERSEAS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI YASHPAL SHARMA & ANR. - 2023 (386) E.L.T. 802 (SC), ... Issues Involved:1. Justification of CESTAT's decision on enhancement of value and penalties.2. Admissibility and reliability of evidence, including statements and export declarations.3. Correct application of Customs Valuation Rules for determining the value of imported goods.Summary:1. Justification of CESTAT's Decision:The Supreme Court evaluated whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in holding that the enhancement of the value of imported goods and the penalties imposed could not be sustained. The CESTAT had set aside the order of the adjudicating authority, which had enhanced the value of the goods based on unattested photocopies of export declarations and imposed penalties.2. Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:The CESTAT had found that the export declarations filed by the foreign supplier before the Hong Kong customs authority could not be relied upon for the purpose of enhancement of value due to several reasons, including that they were unattested photocopies and the supplier had filed another set of declarations indicating the correct price. The CESTAT also noted that there was no investigation carried out by the customs authority with the Hong Kong customs authority revealing anything to the contrary. The Supreme Court concurred with this view, emphasizing that unattested photocopies without proper verification do not have evidentiary value.3. Correct Application of Customs Valuation Rules:The Supreme Court analyzed whether the department correctly applied the Customs Valuation Rules. The adjudicating authority had invoked Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules straightaway, bypassing Rules 5, 6, and 7. The Supreme Court held that the department and the adjudicating authority were not justified in rejecting the import invoice price and enhancing the price without evidence. The Court reiterated that the burden lies upon the department to prove under-valuation by evidence or information about comparable imports, and if the charge of under-valuation is not supported by such evidence, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the importer.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT's decision, finding no error or infirmity in its judgment. The appeals filed by the department were dismissed, confirming that the enhancement of the value of imported goods and the penalties imposed could not be sustained due to lack of reliable evidence and incorrect application of the Customs Valuation Rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
