TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the imported copiers in SKD/CKD condition were to be treated as fully assembled copiers for the purpose of the import control regime and licence validity; (ii) Whether the declared invoice value and the quotations produced by the importers were correctly rejected for assessment under customs valuation law; (iii) Whether confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were justified on the facts found.
Issue (i): Whether the imported copiers in SKD/CKD condition were to be treated as fully assembled copiers for the purpose of the import control regime and licence validity.
Analysis: The goods were imported as components and parts in SKD/CKD condition. The Tribunal held that the proper approach was to examine the individual licence and the actual goods imported, and not to aggregate the consignments merely because, if assembled, they would form complete machines. The reasoning of the Supreme Court in the cited precedent on CKD imports was applied, and the contrary view that the packs should be treated as assembled copiers was rejected. On the Collector's own alternative findings, the licence was also not valid for the individual items, quantities, descriptions, and values imported.
Conclusion: The imported goods were not covered by a valid import licence, and the import control objection was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the declared invoice value and the quotations produced by the importers were correctly rejected for assessment under customs valuation law.
Analysis: The importers themselves ed that the invoice prices did not reflect the real prices of the goods. The Collector's rejection of the invoice value and the quotations was sustained because the quotations relied upon were the very quotations earlier furnished by the importers in support of their manufacturing programme, and the valuation adopted for the remaining items was made under the customs valuation framework. No cogent ground was shown to disturb the valuation findings.
Conclusion: The enhanced valuation was upheld and the declared invoice value was rejected.
Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were justified on the facts found.
Analysis: Once misdeclaration of description and value was established and the goods were found to have been imported without a valid licence, the goods became liable to confiscation. The findings also supported the imposition of redemption fine and personal penalties on the importers and their Managing Director.
Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were justified and were sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety, and the order of confiscation, enhanced valuation, redemption fine, and penalties remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: For deciding import control compliance and licence validity, the goods imported must be examined as imported under the relevant licence and policy, and SKD/CKD parts cannot be treated as prohibited complete machines merely because they may assemble into one; where misdeclaration of value and description is established, the customs valuation and consequential confiscation and penalty may be sustained.
TaxTMI 
