2025-VIL-384-CESTAT-BLR-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Valuation, Undervaluation, Sequencing under Customs Valuation Rules - Appellant imported 'Oath Tokens' and declared the unit price as USD 6.5. Later investigations revealed that identical goods from the same supplier were assessed at unit price of USD 50, which was accepted by the appellant and cleared on payment of appropriate duty - Commissioner redetermined the value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, confirming the demand and interest and also upheld imposition of equivalent penalty - Whether the Commissioner's order to redetermine the value based on the earlier acceptance of the value at USD 50 can be sustained - HELD - The appellant had cleared identical products earlier on payment of USD 50, the Commissioner's order to redetermine the value based on the earlier acceptance of the value at USD 50 cannot be found fault with. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, which held that the proper officer can reject the declared transactional value based on 'certain reasons' to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value, and proceed to determine the value sequentially in accordance with Rules 4 to 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules – Further, the appellant had admitted that the differential duty and interest has been voluntarily paid and requested to drop all proceedings and that the goods were received free of charge under no charge invoice. However, the appellant's claim that the assessments were provisional and hence the question of investigation and imposition of penalty without finalizing the assessments does not arise - the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded back to the department for finalizing the assessments - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page