Summary
The Supreme Court sustained the Tribunal’s restoration of declared transaction values for imported aluminium scrap. The assessing authority had not supplied the required cogent, evidential basis for rejecting the prices actually paid. The Revenue’s request for a remand misconstrued the Tribunal’s reasoning: the enhancement itself lacked the necessary foundation. The Revenue appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the Tribunal should have remanded valuation proceedings rather than restoring declared values where the assessing authority had not justified rejecting them.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1), transaction-value principle, Customs Act, 1962The price actually paid was the normal basis of assessable value, subject to legally established grounds for departure supported by cogent reasons and material. (¶¶ 7, 10, 12, 13)
Held
- Declared invoice prices could not be displaced merely on suspicion. Rejection required cogent reasons and supporting material; the valuation exercise had to establish a lawful basis for discarding the transaction price and adopting another assessable value. (¶¶ 7, 10, 11, 13)
- The Tribunal’s remarks had to be read as a whole. Its conclusion was that the assessing authority had not undertaken the necessary exercise to justify rejecting the declared price, rendering the enhancement erroneous. (¶¶ 4, 7, 12, 13)
- The Revenue’s contention that the authority should receive another opportunity by remand was rejected. The Court found no basis to disturb restoration of the declared values, consistently with the cited valuation authorities. (¶¶ 5, 6, 13, 14, 15)
Result
Revenue appeals dismissed; Tribunal’s rejection of the enhanced assessable values and restoration of declared values left undisturbed, with consequential relief according to law.