2026-VIL-227-CESTAT-CHE-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-227-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Imposition of minimum import price (MIP) by DGFT, Enhancement in declared value based on DGFT Notification - Appellant filed Bills of Entry for clearance of goods declared as Engineered Marble imported from China, with the declared unit prices being below the prescribed MIP of USD 60 per square meter as per DGFT Notification No. 18 (RE-2008) dated 04.08.2011. The Adjudicating Authority enhanced the value of the goods to USD 60 and ordered confiscation, permitting redemption on payment of a fine - Whether the Adjudicating Authority was justified in enhancing the declared transaction value of the goods and imposing confiscation, fine and penalty for the appellant's failure to comply with the DGFT's MIP notification – HELD - The valuation rules under the Customs Act and the value-based restrictions prescribed in the DGFT notification operate in distinct domains. Under the Customs Act, the assessable value is determined on the basis of the declared transaction value for the purpose of applying the ad valorem duty. In contrast, the value mentioned in the DGFT notification is meant to regulate the permissibility of importing the goods - The Adjudicating Authority had enhanced the declared value not on the basis of any findings on any misdeclaration of value or irregularity under the Customs Act, but solely to align the goods with the "policy conditions". Once the value is enhanced and aligned to USD 60 for import purposes, the goods become purged of the taint and are to be treated as compliant with the DGFT notification, irrespective of the fact that such enhancement of value stems from departmental action. Hence if the importer does not contest the enhanced value, as in this case, the goods become freely importable and are no longer liable to penal consequences - The confiscation, fine and penalty are set aside and that the goods are directed to be released after payment of duty as per the enhanced value - The appeal was disposed of accordingly - The Bench expresses considerable surprise that the Ld. Counsel for appellant was unaware of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in their own case even after a decade of its passing, to the extent of requesting this Bench to have the hearing postponed pending outcome of the matter before the Hon’ble High Court. An appellant seeking relief before the Tribunal is obligated to make a full, fair, and true disclosure of all material facts pertinent to the relief claimed, and stating the applicable law. While the Tribunal is presumed to know the law, it is not presumed to know the facts. Complete disclosure is therefore indispensable, especially since the Tribunal ordinarily accepts the submissions and averments of parties at face value, assuming they are made candidly, in good faith and with clean hands.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Jan '26 Burning issues:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?