2025-VIL-469-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Undervaluation of imported goods, Duty evasion - Redetermination of the transaction value of imported goods (slack wax and residue wax) by the original adjudicating authority and consequent demand of differential customs duty and imposition of penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 – HELD - The proper officer has not complied with the two-step verification and examination exercise as mandated by the Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling case. The proper officer has not followed the procedure under sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 which requires the proper officer to intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the declared value and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before making the final decision on the transaction value. The request of the appellants for cross-examination of certain witnesses was also denied, which showed a challenge to procedural fairness - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed - Whether the valuation of the goods under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 based on the value declared in the statement of proprietor of the appellant entities, is in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 – HELD - the valuation of the goods under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 based on the value declared in the statement of proprietor is not in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Tribunal observed that Rule 9 cautions against adopting arbitrary or fictitious values and that the Rules are subservient to the Act and cannot deviate from the provisions of the parent Act.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page