Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellant: High Sea Sale Contract Price Confirmed as Transaction Value for Valuation.</h1> <h3>M/s. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Cochin</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining that the transaction value between the high seas supplier and the Appellant should be the basis for ... Valuation of imported goods - Phenol Acetone - Hydrogen Peroxide - High Sea Sale agreement - enhancement of value - rejection of declared value - HELD THAT:- The Appellant had produced sufficient evidence regarding the value and there is no dispute that the Appellant had paid anything over and above the value declared by them while procuring the goods. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2000 (1) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT], held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. However, inspite of submitting sufficient evidence, the Adjudicating authority rejected the declared value on the ground that “in the absence of actual High Sea Sale value for inclusion in the CIF value of the import goods, 2% notional value is taken for assessment and accordingly assessable value worked out”. Further as per Circular No. 32/2004 dated 11.05.2004, actual High Sea Sale contract price paid by the last buyer would be construed as a transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules and inclusion of commission on notional basis may not be appropriate. The transaction value to be taken into consideration is the transaction between the high seas supplier M/s Jay Polychem India Ltd., and the appellant, which clearly shows that the consideration for the goods is as declared by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is sustainable. Appeal allowed. Issues:Valuation of imported goods under High Sea Sale agreement.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the valuation of imported goods by the Appellant, a public sector undertaking engaged in manufacturing Phenol Acetone and Hydrogen Peroxide. The Appellant imported Benzene under a High Sea Sale agreement, and after provisional assessment and clearance, a show cause notice was issued by the Adjudication authority confirming a differential duty of Rs. 5,75,203 along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication authority's order, leading to the present appeal.During the hearing, the Appellant's Counsel argued that the transaction value declared to Customs was accurate, supported by bank transactions in Indian Rupees, and that adopting the sale price of a foreign seller was legally unsustainable. The Counsel cited various case laws and Circular No. 32/2004 to support their argument that once the transaction value is identifiable, adding commission on a notional basis is inappropriate. The Counsel emphasized the need to consider the actual High Sea Sale contract price as the transaction value.The Authorized Representative for the Respondent contended that the case laws cited by the Appellant were irrelevant, and the inclusion of service charges/commissions in the CIF value of imported goods was necessary. The AR argued that the importer must prove the international transfer of goods and provide a chain of documents to establish the pricing authenticity. The AR disputed the Appellant's explanation for the lower High Sea Sale value and argued that the bid value lacked legal sanctity under the Customs Act.After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the Appellant had provided sufficient evidence to support the declared value, and there was no evidence of payment beyond the declared value. The Tribunal referred to Circular No. 32/2004, stating that the actual High Sea Sale contract price should be considered as the transaction value. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the transaction value between the high seas supplier and the Appellant should be the basis for valuation, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief in accordance with the law.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found