TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Partial win for appellant in goods valuation appeal; confiscation upheld, assessment directed under Project Import Regulations.</h1> <h3>TATA HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. Versus CC., MUMBAI</h3> TATA HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY CO. LTD. Versus CC., MUMBAI - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 171 (Tribunal) Issues: Valuation of imported goods, liability to confiscation, assessment under Project Import RegulationsValuation of Imported Goods:The appellant invited bids for equipment required for a thermal electricity generating station and found Hopkinsons Ltd.'s bid favorable but lacking the supply of essential spares. Despite assurances, the appellant insisted on their supply within the quoted price. The goods arrived, and the appellant declared a value of approximately 25.30 lakhs, leading to a Customs investigation. The Commissioner valued the goods at Rs. 43,16,850, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the spares' value was included in the overall bid, but the Tribunal found no evidence of this. Eventually, the appellant accepted the value given by their engineer, leading to the confirmation of the goods' value.Liability to Confiscation:The appellant claimed they believed the goods' value was included in the contract price, justifying their declared value. However, discrepancies in the invoicing process raised suspicions. The Tribunal found the appellant's actions not bona fide, indicating misdeclaration to evade duties, leading to the confirmation of confiscation and imposition of a reduced penalty.Assessment under Project Import Regulations:The appellant initially claimed assessment under a different tariff heading but later requested clearance under the project import license. The Customs Department contested this, stating the goods were not part of the registered contract. However, the Tribunal noted that the import license and sponsoring authority's letter listed the spares, justifying assessment under the project regulations. Despite initial classification challenges, the Tribunal directed the benefit of a specific tariff heading to be extended to the appellant.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed in part, with directions for the appellant to benefit from the specific tariff heading. The judgment addressed valuation, confiscation liability, and assessment under Project Import Regulations comprehensively, ensuring clarity on each issue raised in the case.
TaxTMI 