To prove undervaluation in customs duty cases, the Supreme Court requires evidence of contemporaneous import prices, or else the benefit of the doubt favors the importer.
Case Title: Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas through its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr
Decided on: 06 October,2023
Neutral Citation: 2023INSC881
CORAM : B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan
INTRODUCTION
The case of “Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. M/s Ganpati Overseas” revolves around allegations of under-invoicing of imported goods from Hong Kong and the subsequent imposition of penalties by Customs authorities in India. The Supreme Court examined the rejection of invoice prices, the burden of proof in under-valuation cases, and the reliance on foreign export declarations.
The Court upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to set aside the penalties and value enhancements, setting a precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case where under-invoicing imported goods from Hong Kong, potentially evading customs duty. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Customs Commissioner imposed penalties.
The central issue was the rejection of the invoice price and the burden of proof for under-valuation. The Customs Valuation Rules were essential in this case. The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties, emphasizing the need for solid reasons and evidence for rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes.
This case established a significant precedent for customs valuation rules and the burden of proof in similar cases.
Courts Analysis and Decision.
The court emphasized that the Customs department must provide solid reasons and evidence when rejecting invoice prices in customs disputes. The burden of proof for under-valuation lies with the department, and detailed inquiries and adequate evidence are required to allege under-valuation.
The Court noted that both the department and the adjudicating authority had not justified the rejection of the import invoice price as incorrect and the subsequent enhancement of the price. As a result, the CESTAT’s decision to set aside the penalties and value enhancements was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Customs Commissioner were dismissed. This case established a significant precedent in customs valuation rules and evidence standards.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer. “
Written by- Kusuma R