CESTAT Delhi held that ‘Twaron Para Aramid Pulp’ is classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 5601 30 00 and not under Customs Tariff Item 5601 22 00. Accordingly, differential duty along with interest confirmed.
The Tribunal set aside a service tax demand against a mandap keeper, ruling that a photocopied invoice and presumptions cannot justify tax liability.
Tribunal ruled that advertisement, promotional, and management service payments made by an importer are not a condition of sale and cannot be added to customs valuation under Rule 10(1)(e).
FOB value was the product of negotiations and deliberations between the parties to the contract, which value could not be modified by any stranger to the contract by virtue of the principle of “privity of contract”.
Proforma invoices could not replace commercial invoices prepared after negotiation and accepted by customs. Statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not be relied upon since the mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed and the alleged proforma invoices were not duly proved or corroborated with evidence.
CESTAT ruled that undervaluation suspicion in one Bill cannot justify rejecting values in other consignments. It upheld revaluation for one import but annulled demands, confiscation, and penalties for 44 past Bills.
Royalty paid for technical know-how was not a ‘condition of sale’ merely because it was included in the value of imported goods as it pertained to post-importation activities relating to the manufacture of finished goods in India and was not a condition of sale of imported components.
CESTAT Delhi held that once goods are exported, drawback cannot be denied even if alleged forgery or diversion by the foreign buyer occurs later.
CESTAT Delhi held that electronic evidence from an unsealed CPU without a Section 139C certificate cannot form the basis of customs assessment. It ruled that DRI’s revaluation of imports was invalid as goods were already assessed by the proper officer. All duty demands, fines, and penalties were quashed.
The CESTAT Delhi ruled that the differential duty paid by Vortex Rubber for provisional release of seized goods is considered customs duty, not a pre-deposit under Section 35FF. This classification affects the applicable interest provisions for delayed refunds.
