2025-VIL-2178-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Import of automobile parts – Rejection of transaction value – Demand of differential duty – Appellant is engaged in import of automobile parts – Department received information to effect that Appellant is involved in mis-declaration in respect of brand description and value of imported goods – Investigation revealed that goods were of reputed brands, however no brand was declared by Appellant – Original authority rejected declared value of imported goods and re-determined the transaction value and also ordered for recovery of differential duty – Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed order passed by Original authority – Whether impugned order upholding rejection of transaction value of imported goods is sustainable – HELD – Onus to prove that declared price did not reflect true transaction value is always on department. Undervaluation is alleged based on allegation that goods imported by Appellant were of renowned brand, but no brand was declared by Appellant in Bill of Entry. Proprietor of Appellant had stated in his statement that goods in question/automobile parts were not actually branded and were only bearing some spurious markings/brand names on outer covering of packages. No enquiries were conducted by Investigating Officers with respective brand owners. There is no evidence produced by department to discharge their onus that impugned goods were branded goods. Findings in impugned order that goods in question were branded are held to be wrong without any basis/evidence for same. Impugned order upholding rejection of transaction value is not sustainable. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside – Appeals allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page