TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 upholds Commissioner's order on over-valuation allegations</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, determining that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of over-valuation of finished ... Show Cause Notice - Issue of - Jurisdiction - Valuation (Customs) Issues Involved:1. Reopening of finalized assessments based on Board's circular.2. Invocation of provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for fraud/collusion/wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts.3. Sufficiency of evidence to support the charge of over-valuation of finished glass beads.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Reopening of Finalized Assessments:The adjudicating authority's view was that the process of reopening final assessments without using the provisions of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962, was incorrect. It was argued that fraudulent importation and clearance do not preclude the issuance of a show cause notice for confiscation of goods. Similarly, any order passed under Section 51 of the Customs Act regarding export goods does not bar the initiation of proceedings under Section 124 to ascertain the correct assessable value. The Tribunal agreed that the Revenue authorities had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Invocation of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962:The Revenue contended that the Commissioner had not considered relevant facts and that there was sufficient evidence to support the charge of over-valuation. However, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence in the statements of Shri Nirmal Kumar Saraswat, who sold the goods to the respondents, to support the allegation of commission or fraudulent activities. The Commissioner had concluded that the statements created doubt but did not constitute tangible evidence to substantiate the over-valuation charge. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the handling of purchase money by Saraswat was irrelevant to the issue of over-invoicing.3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Over-Valuation:The Tribunal examined the evidence, including statements from various individuals and documents provided by Shri Nirmal Kumar Saraswat, Ajay Kr. Ojha, and others. It was found that the statements did not provide positive and tangible evidence of over-valuation. The Commissioner had also noted that samples of the exported goods were misplaced, and no tests were conducted to compare the quality of the exported goods with standard glass beads. The Tribunal emphasized that without such evidence, the allegations of over-valuation could not be justified. The respondents had received full export values through banking channels, and the financial capability of the foreign buyer was not in doubt.Additional Considerations:The respondents argued that the assessments were made following Board circulars, which are binding on departmental authorities. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to comment on this argument, having already determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the over-valuation allegation.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, finding it correct, legal, and sustainable. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
