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>Revenue fails to prove undervaluation of imported glass sheets, extended limitation period improperly invoked</h1> <h3>M/s. Navakar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport-Export), Chennai, Shri Tarachand L. Shah Versus The Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport-Export), Chennai And Shri Anuj Kumar Jain Versus The Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport-Export), Chennai</h3> M/s. Navakar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, (Seaport-Export), Chennai, Shri Tarachand L. Shah Versus The Commissioner of Customs, ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the revenue was justified in rejecting the declared value and re-determining the same.2. Whether the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was barred by limitation.3. Whether there was a violation of natural justice due to non-supply of relied upon documents.Summary:Issue 1: Rejection of Declared Value and Re-determinationThe appellant, an importer of various types of glass sheets, was alleged to have indulged in undervaluation of imports. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) inferred undervaluation based on contemporaneous imports data (NIDB). The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalties u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the transaction value could only be rejected as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 10A of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988/2007. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to provide concrete evidence of contemporaneous imports comparable in all respects and thus failed to justify the rejection of the declared value. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction value must be accepted unless grounds for rejection under Section 14 r/w Customs Valuation Rules are fully satisfied.Issue 2: LimitationThe appellant argued that the SCN dated 04.05.2011 was barred by limitation as the period involved was from 16.05.2006 to 14.05.2008. The Tribunal noted that the requirements to invoke the larger period of limitation include fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement of facts. The Tribunal found that the revenue did not prove willful misstatement or fraud beyond doubt and thus, the invocation of the extended period was not justified. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. M.M.K. Jewellers [2008 (25) ELT 3 (SC)], which held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the absence of suppression of facts, collusion, or willful misstatement.Issue 3: Violation of Natural JusticeThe appellant contended that the non-supply of relied upon documents violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellant made several requests for the supply of documents, which were not furnished. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports [2003 (154) ELT 370 (Bom)], which held that non-supply of adverse materials constitutes a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the documents provided were incomplete and thus, the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to rebut the allegations.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to prove undervaluation and the resultant re-determination of the declared value lacked support. The demand and the impugned order were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits. The penalties imposed on the 2nd and 3rd appellants were also set aside.(Order pronounced in the open court on 29.05.2024)
TaxTMI 