Case Details: Global Technology & Research Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import)- (2025) 26 Centax 392 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr Rachna Gupta, Member (J) & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- Shri B.L. Garg, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Girijesh Kumar, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, an importer, filed bills of entry for the import of camera stands/stabilizers, declaring them as an “unpopular brand”. Upon examination, the goods were found to be of a well-known brand that the same importer had previously imported at a higher value. Customs authorities alleged undervaluation, rejected the declared transaction value, and re-determined the value based on identical goods previously imported from the same supplier at a higher price. The adjudicating authority confirmed the undervaluation, demanded differential duty, interest, and imposed penalties. The importer challenged this decision before the appellate authority, which upheld the rejection of the declared value. The matter was then taken to the tribunal, where the Revenue’s position was affirmed. The importer further appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Revenue’s position and finalized the proceedings in its favour. Relying on this outcome, the adjudicating authority in the present case maintained the re-determination of value. However, for certain goods, the authority failed to provide sufficient reasoning, such as a proper comparison with contemporaneous imports or a detailed justification for rejecting the declared value. Consequently, the importer approached the tribunal
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the rejection of declared value and re-determination under Rules 4 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, was justified for certain goods, as the importer had previously imported identical goods at a higher value, and past proceedings had attained finality in favour of the Revenue. However, for other goods, the Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to provide reasons or compare product features while relying on contemporaneous imports, making the rejection unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of these specific goods.
List of Cases Cited
- Global Technologies and Research v. Principal Commissioner — 2024 (388) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) — Followed Paras 5, 10, 11, 14]
- Principal Commissioner v. Global Technologies & Research — (2023) 4 Centax 123 (Tri. – Del.) — Followed [Paras 10, 11, 14]
