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 assessable value of imported goods could be rejected merely on the basis of the manufacturer's price list and whether the transaction value declared by the importer was liable to be substituted under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Analysis: The department relied principally on the existence of a higher manufacturer's price list and did not establish any basis in the notice for discarding the declared invoice value apart from that price list. The imported goods had been supplied at varying prices, and the record showed that different buyers, including the appellant at different times, had paid different prices for the same products. In these circumstances, the price list could not by itself displace the declared transaction value. Under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, the assessable value must ordinarily be the price actually paid or payable, unless the case falls within the specified exceptions in the proviso to sub-rule (2). No such exception was shown to apply.
Conclusion: The declared transaction value had to be accepted and could not be rejected merely because it was lower than the manufacturer's price list.
Ratio Decidendi: A price list is only a general quotation and, by itself, is not a valid ground for rejecting transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 unless a recognised exception to acceptance of the declared price is established.