2026-VIL-194-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Sections 108 and 138C of Customs Act, 1962 – Rules 3 and 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 – Import of furniture – Rejection of declared value – Demand of differential duty – Appellant filed Bills of Entry for clearance of imported furniture and its parts thereof – After investigation, Principal Commissioner rejected declared value of imported goods under Rule 12 of the Rules, re-determined same under Rule 3 of the Rules and confirmed demand of differential customs duty – Whether statements of persons recorded under Section 108 of the Act could have been relied upon by Principal Commissioner for rejecting the transaction value – HELD – According to Principal Commissioner, statements made under Section 108 of the Act were sufficient to establish that Appellant had mis-declared and undervalued the imported goods to evade payment of customs duty. Impugned order also places reliance upon invoices retrieved from email of supplier. Principal Commissioner had specifically relied upon statements and invoices retrieved from email of supplier, but there is no finding regarding compliance of Section 138C of the Act. In view of aforesaid discussions, it has to be held that statements of persons recorded under Section 108 of the Act could not have been relied upon by Principal Commissioner for rejecting the transaction value and re-determining the same. Impugned order passed by Principal Commissioner is set aside – Appeals allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page