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>CESTAT allows appeal against customs valuation rejection for bypassing sequential Rules 5-7 compliance</h1> <h3>M/s Allure Impex Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin</h3> M/s Allure Impex Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allegation of undervaluation of imported goods.2. Method of valuation adopted by the Customs Authority.3. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules.4. Rejection of transaction value.5. Use of Chartered Engineer's report for valuation.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegation of Undervaluation of Imported Goods:The appellant imported various goods and filed a Bill of Entry. The Customs Authority alleged undervaluation, initiating an investigation which led to a show cause notice. The appellant contended that the goods were bought as a stock lot in a clearance sale, implying a depreciated value rather than a new price list value. The High Court of Kerala intervened, directing the release of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee.2. Method of Valuation Adopted by the Customs Authority:The Customs Authority relied on a valuation report from a Chartered Engineer who assessed the value based on local market data. The appellant argued that this method was unsustainable and not applicable for cutlery and home appliances, as it is typically used for machinery. The Chartered Engineer's report was criticized for using local market prices and making assumptions in valuing unique items.3. Compliance with Customs Valuation Rules:The appellant cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. South India Television (P) Ltd., emphasizing that the Department must prove undervaluation with evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices. The Customs Valuation Rules require sequential compliance, starting from Rule 5 onwards if transaction value is rejected under Rule 4. The adjudication authority failed to follow these rules, directly invoking Rule 8 without sequential compliance.4. Rejection of Transaction Value:The appellant argued that the rejection of transaction value was illegal as the Customs Authority did not provide cogent reasons or evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher prices. The Supreme Court mandates that invoice price should be accepted unless proven otherwise with substantial evidence. The adjudication authority overlooked this, relying instead on the Chartered Engineer's report.5. Use of Chartered Engineer's Report for Valuation:The Chartered Engineer's report was deemed inappropriate as it relied on local market prices rather than the transaction value or import prices of similar goods. The adjudication authority's reliance on this report was criticized for lacking legal basis and not adhering to the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal highlighted previous judgments where similar valuation methods were deemed unsustainable.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the Customs Authority's method of valuation and rejection of transaction value were flawed and not in compliance with the Customs Valuation Rules. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the need for proper adherence to legal standards in valuation processes. The order pronounced in the open court on 26/07/2023 concluded that the valuation method used was incorrect and an improper appreciation of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2002.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
