2026-VIL-833-CESTAT-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-833-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Rejection of transaction value - The Customs authorities sought to reject the declared transaction value and re-determine the value under Customs Valuation Rules based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and documents retrieved from the laptop of the importer – HELD - The statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be relied upon to reject the declared transaction value under rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules as the mandatory procedure under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed. Section 138B requires that the person who made the statement must be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority must form an opinion that the statement should be admitted in evidence. This procedure was not followed in the present case, hence the statements cannot be used as evidence to reject the transaction value. The Commissioner's reliance on the statements to support the plea of under-valuation is not justified - The print-outs retrieved from the laptop cannot be relied upon as the retrieval was not done in his presence. Further, the procedure under section 138C of the Customs Act, which requires a certificate, was also not followed. Hence, the documents retrieved from the laptop cannot be used as evidence against the appellants - The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed - Rejection of transaction value and re-determination - No evidence of mis-declaration of thickness - Contemporaneous import data rejected incorrectly – HELD - The charge of mis-declaration of thickness of the goods is not established as there is no physical examination or laboratory report to support it. The Commissioner rejected the contemporaneous import data obtained by the appellants under RTI incorrectly, merely on the ground that the appellants may have selectively asked for information. This data should have been considered, especially when even one import of identical/similar goods with value similar to the declared value was available. In the absence of any evidence of over-invoicing or mis-declaration, the rejection of the transaction value under rule 10 and re-determination under rules 5/6 is not justified.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly...
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

Security-Code
New Code?

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.

Security-Code
New Code?

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?