Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commissioner Vs V. K. Metcast Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 51287 of 2023-SM
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/07/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Commissioner Vs V. K. Metcast Pvt. Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)

FACTS – The respondent/importer had filed three bills of entry dated 27.01.2021 for clearance of imported goods ‘Zinc Scrap, Saves/Scope’ which were imported from M/s Olympic Metal, Miami, USA. As the Department noticed that the declared value of the goods was lower than the contemporaneous import of similar goods and that the sale involved an abnormal discount and abnormal rejection from ordinary competitive prices, a query was raised from the importer to provide material/evidence to justify the declared value in terms of Section 17(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The assessing officer vide rejected the declared value under Rule 12(1) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred as CVR, 2007) on the ground that the declared value of impugned goods was lower than the value of similar goods being cleared as per the details of bills of entry given. Being aggrieved, by the said order, the importer filed appeal.

CONCLUSION- The case of Mirah Exports (P) Ltd. v. C.C., 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) was referred which says that the burden of proving a charge of undervaluation lies upon the Revenue and Revenue has to produce the necessary evidence to prove the said charge. Ordinarily the Court should proceed on the basis of the apparent tenor of the agreement reflects the real state of affairs and what is to be examined is whether the Revenue has succeeded in showing that the apparent is not the real and that the price shown in the invoices does not reflect the true sale price.

The opportunities were given to the Revenue to adduce the evidence to prove that the invoice price was not the correct sale price. Further, there is no indication as to when the contract for those imports was entered into. Therefore, it was held that Revenue has not succeeded in showing that the price shown in the invoices does not reflect the true sale price.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031