International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
CESTAT set aside the order-in-original enhancing assessable value and demanding differential customs duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. It held that the department failed to discharge the burden of proving under-valuation, having relied only on comparison with prices of other importers' consignments from different suppliers without cogent evidence of extra consideration or parallel invoices. The Tribunal further held that export documents from Uzbekistan relied upon by the department were neither supplied to the importer nor shown to be reliable, and the unsigned commercial invoice had no evidentiary value. Statements recorded under s.108 CA, 1962 were held inadmissible for non-compliance with s.138B, vitiating findings based on them.
CESTAT set aside the order-in-original enhancing assessable value and demanding differential customs duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties. It held that the department failed to discharge the burden of proving under-valuation, having relied only on comparison with prices of other importers' consignments from different suppliers without cogent evidence of extra consideration or parallel invoices. The Tribunal further held that export documents from Uzbekistan relied upon by the department were neither supplied to the importer nor shown to be reliable, and the unsigned commercial invoice had no evidentiary value. Statements recorded under s.108 CA, 1962 were held inadmissible for non-compliance with s.138B, vitiating findings based on them.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.