TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected merely because the importer and supplier were related, and whether the evidence showed a lack of arm's length dealing or any flow back of funds; (ii) Whether, in the event of rejection of transaction value, the valuation sequence under Rule 6A permitted resort to computed value and the alternative methods under Rules 7 and 7A in the manner claimed by the importer.
Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected merely because the importer and supplier were related, and whether the evidence showed a lack of arm's length dealing or any flow back of funds.
Analysis: Related party status by itself was held insufficient to discard transaction value. The evidence placed on record showed uniform worldwide pricing, certificates from the foreign supplier and chartered accountants, and no contrary material from the department establishing flow back, extra consideration, or non-arm's length dealings. The impugned orders were also found to be non-speaking and to have ignored the material evidence and the applicable legal principles.
Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected on the facts of the case.
Issue (ii): Whether, in the event of rejection of transaction value, the valuation sequence under Rule 6A permitted resort to computed value and the alternative methods under Rules 7 and 7A in the manner claimed by the importer.
Analysis: The proviso to Rule 6A was treated as enabling the importer, at its request and with the approval of the proper officer, to seek valuation under the computed value method before the rule sequence moved further. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have overlooked this proviso, and the earlier Tribunal ruling on identical facts was treated as governing the dispute.
Conclusion: The valuation had to be reconsidered in the statutory sequence, with due regard to the importer's request and the applicable rule framework.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh assessment with directions to apply the correct valuation principles and consider the evidence afresh.
Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation, related party status alone does not justify rejection of transaction value unless the department proves lack of arm's length dealing or flow back, and the prescribed valuation sequence must be followed in accordance with the governing proviso and the evidence on record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
