Tag: #Valuation

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Valuation Over Silk Fabric Imports

    Date: 25.06.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s. Elegant International by setting aside a customs demand raised by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner had earlier rejected the declared transaction value of imported Chinese silk fabrics under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988, alleging under-invoicing. However, the Tribunal found the basis of the valuation untenable due to lack of direct evidence against the appellant.

    M/s. Elegant International had imported silk fabrics from Zhejiang Cathaya International, China, between 2003 and 2005 via 37 Bills of Entry. The Commissioner, Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi, passed an order dated 6 February 2009 alleging that the declared transaction values were suppressed. The valuation was rejected under Rule 10A, and the value was reassessed under Rule 5 of the 1988 Valuation Rules. A differential customs duty demand, redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, followed.

    The entire case against the appellant rested on evidence recovered during DRI investigations against other importers (M/s. Purnima Enterprises, M/s. Om Fabrics, and M/s. Vedant Enterprises), where duplicate invoices were allegedly used to understate import value.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    CESTAT Chennai- Valuation and Weight Allegations Not Sustainable

    Date: 08.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench ruled in favor of M/s. Tech Zone Global Trading Company and several other importers, setting aside the confiscation, duty demands, and penalties imposed for allegedly misdeclaring the origin and value of imported PVC flex banners to evade anti-dumping duty (ADD).

    • The importers were accused of routing Chinese-origin PVC flex banners through Malaysia, misusing Country of Origin (COO) certificates to claim AIFTA benefits and evade ADD.
    • The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated action based on the allegation that importers, including Tech Zone, misdeclared the country of origin and underreported quantity and value.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    CESTAT Bangalore held that there was no justification to reject the transaction value

    Date: 02.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Regional Bench Bangalore, has allowed the appeal filed by M/s K V Joshy & C K Paul against the re-determined customs valuation of imported refillable plastic gas lighters from China. In Final Order No. 20531/2025 dated 30 April 2025, the Tribunal ruled that the rejection of transaction value was unjustified due to lack of comparable imports and procedural lapses.

    • The appellants imported refillable plastic gas lighters under Bill of Entry No. 8950081 dated 17.04.2015.
    • Customs authorities alleged undervaluation based on email communications and proforma invoices showing higher values for different branded products.
    • The Adjudicating Authority re-determined the value and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld the reassessment but set aside penalty under Section 114AA.
    • The matter reached CESTAT challenging the basis for rejecting declared values.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Kolkata Rejects Customs Value Enhancement Based on NIDB Data

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejects Customs Value Enhancement Based on NIDB Data

    Date: 26.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the enhancement of import values based on National Import Database (NIDB) data.

    M/s Radha Engineering Company imported “LED/NON-LED Christmas Lights” and “LED Strip Light/LED Rope Light,” declaring specific transaction values. Following an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Revenue alleged undervaluation and enhanced the declared import values based on NIDB data.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds DFIA Exemption on Lithium-Ion Battery Imports

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds DFIA Exemption on Lithium-Ion Battery Imports

    Date: 21.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad Bench – Court No. I has dismissed the Department’s appeal and upheld the exemption granted to M/s Olectra Greentech Ltd. for import of Lithium-ion batteries under a Transferable DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) scheme.

    • Olectra Greentech imported lithium-ion cells under a DFIA license issued against exports of Agricultural Tractors.
    • The customs department denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus dated 01.04.2023, stating that lithium-ion batteries do not match the export input description of “automotive batteries.”
    • The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier ruled in favor of Olectra, prompting a departmental appeal.

    Handy Reader for Download:

  • CESTAT Bangalore set aside the re-determined valuation

    CESTAT Bangalore set aside the re-determined valuation

    Date: 21.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, has ruled in favor of M/s Saash Enterprises, setting aside a customs order that had rejected the declared transaction value of imported laminators, binding machines, and related equipment. The Tribunal quashed the re-determined valuation, confiscation, penalty, and fine imposed by the lower authorities.

    • The case involved Bill of Entry No. 8730452 dated 11.12.2012 for goods including laminators, wire binding machines, and paper cutters.
    • Although the physical description and quantity of the goods matched the import documentation, the customs authorities questioned the declared value and engaged a Chartered Engineer, who estimated a value of USD 69,021 against the declared USD 55,142.06.
    • Based on this, customs re-valued the consignment to β‚Ή46.43 lakhs (from β‚Ή30.96 lakhs) and imposed:
      • Redemption fine of β‚Ή5,00,000
      • Penalty of β‚Ή2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962

    Handy Reader for Download: