2026-VIL-1376-CESTAT-MUM-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1376-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Majority Order - Valuation of Imported Goods, Renegotiated price – Determination of Transaction Value - Respondent imported polyester chips originally consigned by overseas exporter to another importer at agreed price but the said importer did not clear goods or honour bank letter of credit. Respondent then purchased same goods from overseas exporter at renegotiated price after first import attempt failed. Respondent filed bill of entry declaring assessable value based on price actually paid - Department rejected declared value and assessed goods at original price agreed between overseas exporter and first importer who did not take delivery - Whether value should be determined on basis of original contract price between overseas exporter and initial importer who did not take delivery, or on basis of price actually paid by respondent who took actual delivery and cleared goods from port – HELD – Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 requires that transaction value shall be price actually paid or payable for goods when sold for export to India for delivery at time and place of importation where buyer and seller are not related and price is sole consideration. Following Supreme Court judgment in Chaudhary Ship Breakers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, the adjudicating authority is bound to accept price actually paid or payable as transaction value except where exceptions enumerated in Rule 4(2) are attracted - In present case all parameters of transaction value were satisfied only in transaction between overseas supplier and respondent as initial importer never took delivery, never paid any price to exporter and never filed any bill of entry. Since, the concept of ‘transaction value’ was brought into the statute book w.e.f. 10.10.2007, and the dispute involved in the present case relates to the period January, 2009, it is proper and justifiable in law, that the concept of ‘transaction value’ alone should be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the customs duty liability. In the case in hand, since all the parameters laid down in the amended Section 14 of the Act of 1962 had been complied with by the respondent, the price actually paid to the overseas supplier for the imported goods should be considered as transaction value. In other words, no interpretation can be placed to upset the declared value as the price paid by the respondent to the overseas supplier is the sole consideration for the sale of the disputed imported goods - The impugned order is upheld and appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Filing: Closing Resolutions...
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?