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>Tribunal allows appeal on imported goods valuation, emphasizing declared value validity.</h1> <h3>KEDIA VANASPATI LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., VISAKHAPATNAM</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Order concerning the valuation of imported goods. It concluded that the transaction value declared by ... Valuation (Customs) Issues:Customs valuation - contemporaneous value - differential dutyAnalysis:The case involved an appeal against an Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) concerning the valuation of imported goods. The appellant declared a value for the goods, which was challenged by the Revenue based on a higher contemporaneous value declared by another importer for similar goods. The lower authorities upheld the demand for a differential duty, leading the appellant to approach the Tribunal for relief.During the hearing, the appellant's consultant cited a Tribunal ruling in a similar case, emphasizing that imports of identical goods from different countries or in different quantities should not be considered contemporaneous imports. This argument was supported by a Supreme Court decision affirming the Tribunal's ruling.The Revenue reiterated their contentions from the Order under appeal. However, upon careful examination of the case records, the Tribunal noted that the goods were imported based on contracts with foreign suppliers, and the prices were determined accordingly. The Tribunal recognized that international commodity prices fluctuate, and prices may vary based on the timing of contracts and the country of origin. Referring to the Customs Valuation Rules, the Tribunal emphasized that transaction value should not be rejected unless specific exceptions apply, as established in previous Supreme Court rulings.Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason to reject the transaction value declared by the appellant. Therefore, the Order under appeal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary. The operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open Court upon the conclusion of the hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
