Supreme Court Upholds Disregard of Undervalued Imports Compared to Previous Transactions under Customs Act

Supreme Court affirmed the authority to disregard the declared value of imported goods if they are undervalued compared to previous similar transactions. The decision upheld the findings of the Central Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and emphasized the provision allowing for discarding the transaction value under certain circumstances.

Case Summary: The appellant, a regular importer of camera stabilizer devices, imported goods covered by a Bill of Entry dated February 16, 2018, from China. The imported goods were alleged to be undervalued, leading to their seizure by SIIB officers. Despite the appellant’s appeal initially being allowed by the Commissioner of Customs Appeals, the decision was challenged by the Department and later restored by the CESTAT.

Contentions: The appellant challenged the review order’s timeliness and emphasized technical differences in the imported goods compared to earlier transactions. They argued against comparisons based on discrepancies in features and functions. However, the respondent contended that the review order was within legal limits and highlighted similarities in features between the goods in question and earlier imports.

Court’s Observations: The Supreme Court endorsed the findings of the CESTAT, considering the goods to be identical or similar to earlier imports despite minor differences claimed by the appellant. The court noted detailed reasons provided by the adjudicating authority and the CESTAT regarding the valuation of the imported goods. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the undervaluation of the declared transaction value.

Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the imposition of penalties and the recovery of differential customs duty from the appellant. The court found no merit in the appeal and ordered no costs.

Case Details:

1. Case Title: M/s Global Technologies and Research vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import)
2. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Mithal
3. Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 164 SC
4. Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR, and others
5. Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. N. Venkatraman, A.S.G., Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, and others

 If you like this law news, share it with a friend!