Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The appellant provided sufficient evidence regarding the value and there was no dispute that the appellant had paid anything over and above the declared value while procuring the goods. The Apex Court held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. Despite submitting sufficient evidence, the adjudicating authority rejected the declared value on the ground of absence of actual High Sea Sale value and included 2% notional value for assessment. As per Circular No. 32/2004, the actual High Sea Sale contract price paid by the last buyer would be construed as the transaction value u/r 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and inclusion of commission on a notional basis may not be appropriate. The transaction value to be considered is the transaction between the high seas supplier and the appellant, which clearly shows the consideration for the goods as declared by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is sustainable and allowed.
The appellant provided sufficient evidence regarding the value and there was no dispute that the appellant had paid anything over and above the declared value while procuring the goods. The Apex Court held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. Despite submitting sufficient evidence, the adjudicating authority rejected the declared value on the ground of absence of actual High Sea Sale value and included 2% notional value for assessment. As per Circular No. 32/2004, the actual High Sea Sale contract price paid by the last buyer would be construed as the transaction value u/r 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, and inclusion of commission on a notional basis may not be appropriate. The transaction value to be considered is the transaction between the high seas supplier and the appellant, which clearly shows the consideration for the goods as declared by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is sustainable and allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
