9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon
Follow us:
|
Home
2010 (8) TMI 203 - AT - CustomsValuation - Enhancement of value - Contemporaneous import - Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the import of identical goods from the same supplier in January 2002 Revenue relying on Contemporaneous import of identical goods from china by another company Held that - import of identical goods from china treated as Contemporaneous import - contemporaneous imports can be relied upon to enhance the value of imports - allow the appeal of the Revenue Appeal is dismissed
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the enhancement of value of Titanium Dioxide B101 Anatase imported by the respondents in September 2001. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, consisting of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President, and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T), heard the appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The declared value by the assessees was US$ 825, equivalent to Rs. 39,454.38. The Department rejected this value based on the contemporaneous import of identical goods from China in November 2001 by M/s. Berger Paints. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the import of identical goods from the same supplier in January 2002 by M/s. Pure Trading Asia Ltd., Karaikal. The Tribunal found that the import by M/s. Berger Paints could be considered contemporaneous as it occurred just about two months after the import by M/s. Kiran Pondy Chem. Ltd. The Tribunal referenced a recent decision by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Ratanlal v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which stated that contemporaneous imports can be used to enhance the value of imports. The Tribunal, after considering the above discussion, set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue. Additionally, the cross-objection filed by the importer was dismissed as it was deemed to be only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the appeal of the Revenue. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in an open court setting.
|
