Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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.
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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Customs value enhancement upheld based on email evidence showing higher payments than declared invoice amounts

        M/s. Sunshine International Versus The Commissioner of Customs Tuticorin

        M/s. Sunshine International Versus The Commissioner of Customs Tuticorin - 2025 (391) E.L.T. 426 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:
        1. Legality of rejection of the declared transaction value and enhancement of value.
        2. Admissibility of e-mail evidence under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.
        3. Validity of the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
        4. Appropriateness of the redemption fine and penalty imposed.

        Detailed Analysis:

        Legality of Rejection of Declared Transaction Value and Enhancement of Value:
        The appellant imported 2400 cartons of Non-Alcoholic Ginger Beer, declaring the value as USD 3240 (C&F). The department, based on an e-mail and a statement from the appellant's partner, found the actual value to be GBP 10,920. The department enhanced the value to GBP 10,920 under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing to reject the declared value, confiscate the goods, and impose penalties. The original authority upheld this, ordering the appellant to pay differential duty and imposing a penalty. The Tribunal found that the department correctly rejected the transaction value and enhanced the value based on the e-mail and the statement, as the appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for the higher amount paid to the foreign supplier. Therefore, the order of enhancement of value and the confirmation of differential duty was upheld.

        Admissibility of E-mail Evidence under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962:
        The appellant argued that the e-mail could not be relied upon as evidence because the department did not comply with Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. The department countered that the e-mail was not retrieved by them but was downloaded and handed over by the appellant himself. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not counter this fact in their reply to the SCN. As the e-mail was downloaded and handed over by the appellant voluntarily, the Tribunal found it to be admissible evidence. The Tribunal distinguished this case from Jeen Bhavani International Vs Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, where the e-mails were retrieved by the department without compliance with Section 138C. Thus, the reliance on the e-mail was deemed proper.

        Validity of the Statement Recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962:
        The appellant contended that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was given under threat and was later retracted. The department argued that there was no mention of any threat or duress in the appellant's reply to the SCN. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not retracted the statement in the reply to the SCN and had not provided any explanation for the higher amount paid to the foreign supplier. The Tribunal noted that the statement was corroborated by the e-mail, which detailed the actual transaction value. Therefore, the statement was considered valid evidence for rejecting the transaction value and enhancing the value.

        Appropriateness of the Redemption Fine and Penalty Imposed:
        The appellant argued that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were excessively high. The Tribunal agreed that the redemption fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- was excessively high for a differential duty amount of Rs. 2,97,256/-. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/- and also reduced the penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, taking a lenient view.

        Conclusion:
        1. The rejection of the declared value and enhancement of value is upheld.
        2. The redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
        3. The penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-.
        4. The appeal is partly allowed with consequential relief, if any.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found