NDLI: Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Customs Act 1962
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Issue for consideration:Whether the tribunal was justified in holding that enhancementof value of the imported goods and the penalties imposed by theCommissioner of Customs on the noticee-respondents could notbe sustained and consequently in setting aside the same.Customs Act, 1962 – 14 – Customs Valuation (Determinationof Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 – r. 4, 8, 5, 6 and 7– Transaction value of imported goods – Determination of –Allegations of under-invoicing of price and thereby evasion ofcustoms duty by the respondents – Initiation of proceedingson the basis of the price declared by the foreign supplierin the first set of export declarations filed before the HongKong customs authority – Discrepancies noticed in the pricementioned in the export declarations and the price of the goodsas per the import invoices – Filing of second set of exportdeclarations albeit imposition of penalty for mis-declarationof price at the initial stage, which stood paid by the foreignsupplier – Department after rejecting the price declared asper the import invoices, invoked r. 8 straightaway instead ofgoing through rr. 5, 6 and 7 thereof sequentiallyHeld: If transaction value of imported goods cannot be determined,the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through rr.5 to 8 – Where the value of imported goods cannot be determinedunder the provisions of any of the rr 5 to 7A, the value shall bedetermined using reasonable means as provided in r. 8-the residualmethod – Furthermore, transaction value can be rejected if theinvoice price is not found to be correct but it is for the departmentto prove that the invoice price is incorrect – On facts, both thedepartment as well as the adjudicating authority were not justifiedin rejecting the import invoice price of the goods as not correct andenhancing the price by straightaway invoking r. 8 when there wasno evidence before them to do so – Thus, the tribunal was justifiedin setting aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority –No error or infirmity in the impugned judgement of passed by thetribunal. [Paras 34.1, 37, 40.2, 41,42]Customs Act, 1962 – Initiation of proceeding alleging under-invoicing of price of goods imported from foreign countryand thereby evading customs duty by the noticee – Relianceupon the unattested photocopies of the first set of exportdeclarations filed by the foreign supplier before the customsauthority showing great discrepancy in the price mentionedin the export declarations and the price of the goods as perthe import invoices – Justification:Held: Export declarations relied upon by the Department andearlier by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were unattestedphotocopies – Since those documents were used as a piece ofevidence against the noticee, it was necessary that those documentswere required to have been proved – Unattested photocopies of therelied upon documents without anyone proving or owning up theveracity of the same would not have any evidentiary value – Verysubstratum of these documents was subsequently removed whenthe foreign supplier filed a second set of export declarations beforethe Hong Kong customs authority showing lower price matching theprice of the goods declared in the import invoices – Foreign supplierhad paid the penalty for mis declaration of price at the initial stage– There can be no justifiable reason for the department to harpupon the price of the goods as per the initial export declarationsby placing reliance on the unattested photocopies of the first setof export declarations to prove under-invoicing for the purpose ofevading customs duty – Tribunal rightly held that the value shownin the first set of export declarations could not form any reliablebasis for enhancement of the value. [Paras 16, 17]Customs Act, 1962 – s. 108 – Power to summon personsto give evidence and produce documents – Admissibility inevidence of the statement recorded u/s. 108:Held: Customs officer is not a police officer, and the personsummoned and who makes a statement u/s. 108 is not an accused– However, a statement made by a person u/s.108 before theconcerned customs officer is admissible in evidence and can beused against such a person – Object underlying s. 108 is to elicitthe truth from the person who is being examined regarding theincident of customs infringement, thus customs officer must ensure
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 881
Petitioner	Commissioner Of Customs (imports), Mumbai
Respondent	M/s Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr.
SCR	[2023] 13 S.C.R. 172
Judgement Date	2023-10-06
Case Number	4735

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited

M/s Relax Safety Industries, Mumbai and Anr. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, (import), Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Anr.

M/s. Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Tullow India Operations Ltd.

M/s Carpenter Classic Exim P. Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs (imports) and Anr.

Comissioner of Customs (imports) Bombay Vs. M/s. Hico Enterprises

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M.m.k. Jewellers & Anr.

M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr.

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited

M/s Relax Safety Industries, Mumbai and Anr. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, (import), Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Anr.

M/s. Gammon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Tullow India Operations Ltd.

M/s Carpenter Classic Exim P. Ltd. Vs. Commnr. of Customs (imports) and Anr.

Comissioner of Customs (imports) Bombay Vs. M/s. Hico Enterprises

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M.m.k. Jewellers & Anr.

M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs (imports), Mumbai Vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas Through Its Proprietor Shri Yashpal Sharma & Anr.