Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the declared transaction value of the imported goods was liable to be rejected and the assessable value re-determined on the basis of the material gathered during investigation.
Analysis: The declared invoice price is ordinarily required to be accepted as the transaction value under the valuation framework, but it may be discarded where the Department shows valid reasons and supporting material indicating undervaluation. Here, the investigation disclosed contemporaneous internet price data for identical or similar goods, statements of the authorised representative recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 accepting the enhanced value, and no retraction of those statements. The record also showed that the differential duty was deposited and that the assessee did not produce evidence to displace the material relied upon by the Department. On these facts, the rejection of the declared value and re-determination under the valuation rules was held to be legally sustainable.
Conclusion: The transaction value was correctly rejected, the re-determined assessable value was upheld, and the challenge to the penalty and duty confirmation failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Department produces credible material of contemporaneous comparable prices and the importer's representative admits the enhanced value without retraction, the declared transaction value may be rejected and valuation re-determined under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.