Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
CESTAT held that the customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
CESTAT held that the customs authorities could not deny the preferential rate of duty under N/N. 46/2011-Cus. solely on the basis of an FTA Cell letter alleging that the relevant Certificate of Origin was "inauthentic," without producing the underlying verification report. In absence of this primary document, the conclusion of inauthenticity was treated as hearsay and legally unsustainable. Further, earlier imports under six separate Bills of Entry, supported by different Certificates of Origin, could not be discredited merely by association with the disputed certificate, especially when their assessments had attained finality and were never challenged. Consequently, CESTAT set aside the confirmed demands, and the appeals filed by M/s. X were allowed in entirety.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
