Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The case pertains to the rejection of self-assessed value of imported aluminium scrap and determination of the method for valuation. The key points are: rejection of the transaction value declared by importers in Bills of Entry is permissible u/s 14 of the Customs Act and Valuation Rules if the proper officer has reasonable doubts about its truth or accuracy, even without payment of additional consideration. The proper officer followed due procedure by recording reasons and communicating them to importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that transaction value could not be rejected. After rejecting the declared value, the Deputy Commissioner was required to re-determine the value as per the Valuation Rules. However, the reasoning for applying Rule 5 was cryptic and not examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for re-determining the value in accordance with the Customs Act and Valuation Rules.
The case pertains to the rejection of self-assessed value of imported aluminium scrap and determination of the method for valuation. The key points are: rejection of the transaction value declared by importers in Bills of Entry is permissible u/s 14 of the Customs Act and Valuation Rules if the proper officer has reasonable doubts about its truth or accuracy, even without payment of additional consideration. The proper officer followed due procedure by recording reasons and communicating them to importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that transaction value could not be rejected. After rejecting the declared value, the Deputy Commissioner was required to re-determine the value as per the Valuation Rules. However, the reasoning for applying Rule 5 was cryptic and not examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for re-determining the value in accordance with the Customs Act and Valuation Rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
