30-Year-Old Import Cannot Be Remanded to Trace Supplier

Centax Editorial Board

February 5, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai vs. Mehta Trading House P. Ltd. (2026) 38 Centax 312 (S.C.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Pankaj Mithal & S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, V.C. Bharathi, P.V. Yogeshwaran, Ms Vishakha, Arijit Prasad, Rajnish Prasad, Udai Khanna, Advs., for the Appeallant.
S/Shri Kumar Visalaksh, Udit Jain, Advs., Praveen Kumar, AOR, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The matter related to the valuation of stock lots of glass beads and chatons imported and cleared as stock lots after examination by Customs officers. The examination report and remarks of the group appraiser on the bills of entry indicated that the goods were stock lots. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were stock lots and not of prime quality and enhanced the value. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in the impugned order, held that since the importer had himself admitted undervaluation of the goods and had subsequently disclosed the correct value based on his own records, enhancement of value on the basis of such disclosure could not be faulted, notwithstanding immediate retraction, as no records were produced to rebut such disclosure. The Tribunal further held that there was no provision under the Customs Act, 1962, or the rules framed thereunder for enhancement of value of past consignments on the basis of weighted average value, rejected the Department’s plea on that basis, and upheld adoption of residuary Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Held

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Department’s limited plea was to remit the matter for examination of the foreign supplier or exporter of the goods, who had not been examined earlier. It was held that, since the goods had been imported 30 years ago, it was not possible to trace out the foreign supplier or exporter after such a long lapse of time. The Court held that nothing in particular survived for adjudication in the appeals filed against the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeals were disposed of under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.