Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988

31 judgments · newest first · showing 1–31

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATAversusM/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

2020 INSC 367Dismissed

The Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) imported plant equipment under two contracts that also included fees for basic design, engineering, and foreign supervision. The customs authorities added these fees to the assessable value of the equipment under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, …

INDUSIND MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LTDversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2019 INSC 1097Dismissed

IndusInd Media & Communications Ltd imported a set of equipment for a cable TV "Head End" and declared the items individually under various tariff headings. The Customs Department alleged that the declaration was false, the goods were undervalued, and that software and related services, which were …

M/S. GMRENERGY LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

2015 INSC 802Disposed off

M/s GMR Energy Ltd. imported hot‑section turbine parts under a Long‑Term Assured Parts Supply Agreement (LTAPSA) with GE USA, re‑exporting the used parts and paying customs duty on the invoice value. The Customs Commissioner, relying on Rules 4 and 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, added one‑third …

M/S. MANGALORE REF. & PETROCHEMICALS LTD .versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE

2015 INSC 626Disposed off

Mangalore Refineries & Petrochemicals Ltd imported crude oil in 144 voyages between 1996 and 1998. The Revenue, via a show‑cause notice, demanded customs duty on the basis of the quantity shown in the bills of lading, arguing that the duty was now ad valorem and therefore should be calculated on the …

WIPRO LTD.versusASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & ORS.

2015 INSC 326Appeal(s) allowed

WIPRO Ltd., an importer of computer components, challenged the customs valuation rule that mandates adding 1% of the FOB value of goods as loading, unloading and handling charges even when the actual charges are known and ascertainable. The issue was whether the proviso (ii) to sub‑rule (2) of Rule …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABADversusMIS. ESSAR STEEL LTD.

2015 INSC 318Dismissed

Essar Steel Ltd. entered into a technical services agreement with Met Chem Canada Inc. to obtain consultancy for setting up a steel plant in India, and subsequently placed a purchase order for the plant and machinery. The Customs authority added the fee for the technical services (DM 78.95 million) …

M/S. GIRA ENTERPRISES AND ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

2014 INSC 556Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. Gira Enterprises imported cyanuric chloride from China, declaring a value of US$5,001 per metric ton. The Customs Commissioner, relying on a computer printout that allegedly showed other imports of the same chemical at US$1,950 per metric ton, reassessed the value to US$1,860 per metric ton …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISHAKHAPATNAMversusM/S AGGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD.

2011 INSC 769Dismissed

Aggarwal Industries Ltd. imported 500 metric tons of crude sunflower seed oil under a contract dated 26 June 2001 at US$435 per metric ton, but shipment was delayed until 5 August 2001. The Customs authority rejected the contract price as the transaction value, arguing that the international market …

MIS. SIDDACHALAM EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI-ILL

2011 INSC 255Appeal(s) allowed

The exporter, Mis Siddachalam Exports Pvt. Ltd., claimed a duty drawback on garments exported at declared FOB values of Rs. 390‑417 per piece, but the customs authorities alleged the values were inflated and seized the goods. A market valuation report from M/s Skipper International, later retracted, …

M/S CHOUDHARY SHIP BREAKERSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

2010 INSC 729

M/S Chaudhary Ship Breakers imported an old vessel under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) at a price of US$992,887.20. After inspection revealed corrosion, the parties executed an addendum reducing the price to US$929,388.60, which was reflected in the bill of entry. The Deputy Commissioner later …

M/S. VARSHA PLASTICS PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2009 INSC 109Dismissed

Varsha Plastics Pvt. Ltd. imported a consignment of LDPE/HDPE granules from the United States and declared a low invoice price. The Customs Authority rejected the transaction value as unrealistically low, enhanced the valuation using prices from foreign journals as directed by Standing Order No. …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAIversusM/S. J.D. ORGOCHEM LIMITED

2008 INSC 477Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs appealed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which had accepted M/s JD Orgochem Ltd.'s declared transaction value of US$13.2 per kg for imported dinitro crysazine, despite an earlier import at US$18.7 per kg. The assessing …

M/S. WEP PERIPHERALS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

2008 INSC 230Appeal(s) allowed

M/s WEP Peripherals Ltd imported shuttles used in printers and paid a royalty/licence fee to the foreign supplier. The Customs adjudicating authority added the royalty fee to the customs value of the shuttles by using the peak price, ignoring that the importer had received a bulk order and had …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMSversusM/S FERODO INDIA PVT. LTD.

2008 INSC 231Dismissed

The appellant, Commissioner of Customs, appealed against the Tribunal’s order that the royalty and licence fees payable under a technical assistance and trademark agreement (TAA) between M/s Ferodo India Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) and its foreign licensor should be added to the customs value of …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTAversusSOUTH INDIA TELEVISION (P) LTD.

2007 INSC 737Dismissed

The importer South India Television Ltd. imported ceramic capacitors and diodes from Hong Kong and declared low invoice prices. The Customs Department issued a show‑cause notice alleging under‑invoicing and invoked Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules to enhance the assessable value based on export …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), CHENNAIversusM/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT.LTD.

2007 INSC 626Dismissed

The appellant, the Commissioner of Customs (Port) Chennai, appealed against the CESTAT order that excluded royalty and technical know‑how fees from the transaction value of capital goods imported by Mis. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. for setting up an automobile plant. The dispute centered on …

RABINDRA CHANDRA PAULversusCOMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) SHILLONG

2007 INSC 219Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rabindra Chandra Paul, imported two consignments of refined soybean oil from Bangladesh at a C&F price of Rs 24.50 per kg. The Customs Department, doubting the declared value, asked for a cost break‑up and later invoked Rule 7A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, rejecting the …

M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

2006 INSC 669Appeal(s) allowed

ISPAT Industries Ltd imported iron ore pellets that were off‑loaded from the mother vessel at Bombay Floating Light (BFL) onto barges and taken to Dharamtar jetty. The Customs authorities added the barge transportation charges to the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, …

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHIversusM/S PRODELIN INDIA (P) LTD.

2006 INSC 574Dismissed

M/s Prodelin India (P) Ltd., a joint‑venture Indian company 75% owned by a U.S. firm, assembled VSAT antennas using components supplied by the foreign partner and paid a monthly technical service fee for post‑import activities such as training and design assistance. The Deputy Commissioner of …

M/S UDAYANI SHIP BREAKERS LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT

2006 INSC 76Dismissed

Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd. purchased a ship that had been imported by another Indian company for ship‑breaking. The ship was damaged after arrival in India and was sold to the appellant on an "as is where is" basis for a reduced price of Rs 12.01 crore, whereas the original import price was Rs 24.78 …

M/S ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2001 INSC 47Disposed off

The appellants, Indian public corporations engaged in manufacturing, imported technical drawings, designs and manuals from foreign collaborators on media such as paper and diskettes under technical collaboration agreements. The Customs Commissioner issued show‑cause notices under Section 28(1) of …

MIS. EICHER TRACTORS LTD., HARYANAversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

2000 INSC 524Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Eicher Tractors Ltd imported a five‑year‑old stock of bearings from a Japanese vendor at a 77% discount and declared the price actually paid in its Bill of Entry. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the declared value, deeming the discount abnormal, and instead fixed the value using …

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMSversusM/S. TELEVISION AND COMPONENTS LTD. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 98Case Partly allowed

The respondents imported Tape Deck Mechanisms (TDMs) from Yamato at a declared price of S$250 per set, whereas earlier orders with Mohan Impex were at S$343.45 per set. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized the goods and the Collector of Customs found deliberate under‑invoicing, …

GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS .

1999 INSC 446Dismissed

Garden Silk Mills Ltd. and other importers brought several appeals challenging the Customs Department’s addition of landing charges to the CIF price of polyester yarn imported under CIF contracts for the purpose of determining assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The …

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), AHEMDABADversusM/S ESSAR GUJARAT LTD. SURAT

1996 INSC 1334Disposed off

Essar Gujarat Ltd. purchased a Direct Reduction Iron Plant from Teviot Investments Ltd. and, as a pre‑condition, obtained a process licence and technical know‑how from Midrex and Yoest Alpine (V.A.). The Collector of Customs added the licence fee (DM 2,000,000) and a portion of the engineering and …

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTAversusSANJAY CHANDIRAM

1995 INSC 339Appeal(s) allowed

The Collector of Customs appealed against the CEGAT order that had accepted the importer’s declared price for zip rolls as the transaction value despite the importer’s forged certificate of North Korean origin. The Supreme Court held that Rules 3 and 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules presume a …