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 Order: No Evidence for Rejection of Transaction Values; Penalties and Extended Limitation Period Dismissed</h1> <h3>M/s Himalaya Tractor Co. and M/s Puneet Samalia Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port.), Kolkata</h3> M/s Himalaya Tractor Co. and M/s Puneet Samalia Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port.), Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rejection of Transaction Value2. Use of NIDB Data for Valuation3. Branding of Imported Goods4. Extended Period of Limitation5. Penalty on PartnerSummary:Rejection of Transaction Value:The Appellant's declared transaction values for goods imported through nine Bills of Entry and Bill of Entry No. 8177874 were rejected based on a sheet retrieved from their computer, which the DRI alleged contained the actual transaction value. The Tribunal found this adoption erroneous as the sheet was not a price list.Use of NIDB Data for Valuation:The Commissioner re-determined the assessable value using NIDB data. The Tribunal held that transaction value cannot be rejected solely based on NIDB data, as it does not show imports of comparable goods. The adjudicating authority failed to consider instances of lower value imports cited by the Appellant, relying only on DRI's dossier. The Tribunal found no evidence to reject the declared transaction value and set aside the differential duty demand and penalties.Branding of Imported Goods:The Tribunal observed no evidence that goods imported through the nine Bills of Entry were branded. The mere embossing of 'SORL' and part numbers for identification does not make the goods branded. The adjudicating authority did not provide contrary findings, thus the claim of branding was dismissed.Extended Period of Limitation:The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no suppression of facts. All nine Bills of Entry were cleared upon assessment and payment of duty by the proper officer, and no information was suppressed by the Appellant.Penalty on Partner:The Tribunal found no evidence against the partner, Shri Puneet Samalia, in the alleged offense. As the suppression of value was not established, the penalty imposed on him was set aside.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, rejecting the re-determined values, differential duty demands, and penalties, and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellants.
TaxTMI 