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 could be discarded and the assessable value enhanced on the basis of chits, papers and statements recovered from a third party, in the absence of contemporaneous import evidence of similar goods at higher prices.
Analysis: Valuation of imported goods under the Customs law is ordinarily governed by the transaction value, and rejection of that value requires reliable evidence showing that the declared value is not genuine. The material relied on by the Department consisted only of papers recovered from the premises of a third party and recorded statements. The evidence did not establish contemporaneous imports of the same goods from the same country, of the same quality and quantity, at higher prices. The Tribunal treated such material as insufficient to displace the declared value and held that the burden to prove falsity of the transaction value had not been discharged on a preponderance of probability.
Conclusion: The declared value could not be rejected on the basis of the material relied upon by the Department, and the enhancement of value was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Transaction value under customs valuation cannot be rejected unless the Department produces cogent evidence of contemporaneous imports or other reliable material proving that the declared value is not genuine; bare third-party papers or uncorroborated statements are insufficient.