TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the assessable value of the imported second-hand machine was to be fixed on the declared invoice value or by reference to comparable imported goods and other evidence of value; and (ii) whether confiscation, fine in lieu of confiscation, and penalty were justified on the facts.
Issue (i): Whether the assessable value of the imported second-hand machine was to be fixed on the declared invoice value or by reference to comparable imported goods and other evidence of value.
Analysis: The declared invoice value could not be accepted merely because the transaction was genuine, since valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 is based on the deemed value of like goods ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation. The machine relied upon by the department for comparison was found not to be truly comparable, as it was a different machine, from a different manufacturer, and more modern and sophisticated than the imported 1979-vintage second-hand machine. On the other hand, the record contained other credible indications of value, including the earlier sale invoices, the Chartered Engineer's certificate, and the affidavit of the temple priest. In such circumstances, the appropriate approach was to adopt the highest of the available values and add freight and insurance as indicated in the notice.
Conclusion: The assessable value was to be determined on the basis of the highest of the proven values, with freight and insurance added, and not merely on the declared invoice value.
Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, fine in lieu of confiscation, and penalty were justified on the facts.
Analysis: The evidence did not establish deliberate under-invoicing, mala fides, or foreign exchange remittance. Since the department had not made out a case warranting a finding of intentional misdeclaration on the evidence, the drastic consequences of confiscation and penalty were not justified. The imported machine was second-hand and reconditioned, and the material on record supported bona fide disclosure rather than fraudulent import conduct.
Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the goods were to be revalued on the highest established basis, while the confiscation and penalty consequences were annulled.
Ratio Decidendi: For customs valuation of used goods, the declared price is not conclusive where Section 14 valuation requires adoption of the real assessable value; however, comparable goods must be truly comparable, and in the absence of deliberate under-valuation or mala fides, confiscation and penalty are unwarranted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
