2025-VIL-1885-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Undervaluation of imported goods – Appellant imported digital receiver sets components of Chinese origin – Dept rejected the declared value as the values were much lower than the prices at which other importers had imported similar goods during the relevant period. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty under the extended period of limitation, imposed interest, and also imposed penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 – HELD - The demand of duty cannot be sustained as the transaction values declared by the appellant were already enhanced by the proper officer at the time of assessment of the Bills of Entry, and the Department did not provide any evidence or reasons as to why the values determined by the proper officer were not correct – The DRI has a view different from the views of the proper officer regarding the assessable value and the Commissioner agreed with the DRI. No reasons are available as to why the values at which the goods assessed by the proper officer were wrong - The demand of duty redetermining the assessable values in the Bills of Entry cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence or reason as to why the values determined by the proper officer assessing the Bills of Entry were not correct - Further, the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be admitted as evidence as per Section 138B and therefore, cannot be relied upon to invoke the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act - The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page