Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Appellant imported fuel filters and other filters from China, but upon examination, it was found that the goods were of superior quality branded as Komatsu, Deutz, Volvo, etc., originating from Germany, South Korea, allowing the importer to sell them as original branded filters. The declared invoice value from the Chinese exporter could not be accepted prima facie. The appellant initially agreed to pay the differential duty as per the enhanced value determined by Customs officials but later sought re-examination by a Chartered Engineer approved by DGFT. The Tribunal found no error in the Chartered Engineer's examination and value determination. The appellant was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.25,23,360/- along with interest to clear the consignment. However, considering it was not a serious contravention and the appellant was initially willing to pay or re-export, the confiscation order, redemption fine, and penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- were set aside.
Appellant imported fuel filters and other filters from China, but upon examination, it was found that the goods were of superior quality branded as Komatsu, Deutz, Volvo, etc., originating from Germany, South Korea, allowing the importer to sell them as original branded filters. The declared invoice value from the Chinese exporter could not be accepted prima facie. The appellant initially agreed to pay the differential duty as per the enhanced value determined by Customs officials but later sought re-examination by a Chartered Engineer approved by DGFT. The Tribunal found no error in the Chartered Engineer's examination and value determination. The appellant was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs.25,23,360/- along with interest to clear the consignment. However, considering it was not a serious contravention and the appellant was initially willing to pay or re-export, the confiscation order, redemption fine, and penalty of Rs.2,50,000/- were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
