TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Importer prevails as Tribunal sets aside order, grants appeal with consequential relief. Refund subject to unjust enrichment.</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, setting aside the impugned order-in-original and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Any refund ... Valuation - Undervaluation Issues involved: Valuation of imported goods, application of Customs Valuation Rules, burden of proof on department, comparison with contemporaneous import, application of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules.Valuation of Imported Goods: The appeal challenged the valuation of 24 MTs of Sarjarsam imported from Indonesia, declared at US $ 300 per MT, which the Custom House deemed undervalued compared to a similar import from Singapore at US $ 575 per MT. The Collector valued the goods at US $ 575 per MT (CIF) Madras, imposing fines and penalties.Application of Customs Valuation Rules: The Collector applied Rule 8 of Valuation Rules due to the difference in quantity imported, as Rules 4 to 7 were deemed inapplicable since the import was from Singapore despite the country of origin being Indonesia.Burden of Proof: The appellant argued that the department failed to discharge the burden of proof in the impugned order-in-original, as they imported directly from Indonesia, had a larger quantity, and paid duty based on Custom House valuation to avoid demurrage, without accepting the valuation.Comparison with Contemporaneous Import: The Tribunal found infirmities in the contemporaneous import relied upon by the Collector, noting differences in quantity, country of supply, and lack of consideration for profit margins and freight costs, leading to an incorrect valuation under Rule 8.Application of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules: The Tribunal emphasized that the department must first discharge the burden of proof before resorting to Valuation Rules, criticizing the Collector for using the contemporaneous import to reject the transaction value without proper analysis.Precedents and Decisions: Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the onus on the department to prove comparable imports from the same country of origin, the importance of considering various factors in valuation, and the significance of quantity and other import characteristics in determining comparability.Decision: Considering the arguments and legal principles, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, setting aside the impugned order-in-original and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Any refund due would be subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment as per relevant Supreme Court decisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
