Vision Trade Links Vs. Cc

Vision Trade Links vs Cc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Apr 27, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/35072

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/35072
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: K Usha, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Apr 27, 2004
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vision Trade Links

Respondent

Legal References

Reported In: (2004)(94)ECC487

Excerpt

1. the appellant imported in july 2003 a consignment of mulberry silk fabrics. the unit price of purchase was 1 us dollar per metre. under the impugned order it has been held that the purchase price should be rejected and the goods should be assessed at a unit value of us dollar 1.29 per metre. the reason for assessment of the goods at the enhanced value is that contemporaneously there was other import at the said higher price, 2. the contention of the appellant is that the enhancement of value is contrary to settled law inasmuch as every imported consignment is required to be assessed at its transaction value and not at the price of other imported goods. the appellants also point out that the higher value for the compared consignment could also be on account of the lower quantity under purchase. the appellant's purchase was 60,000 metres in quantity while the compared import was only 20,000 metres.according to the appellants, the difference in price could have been on account of such vast difference in quantity.3. the appellants are right in their contention that transaction value cannot be rejected merely on the ground that contemporaneously there was another import at higher price. there is no material in the present case to show that the transaction value did not represent the full commercial price of the goods under import. the appellants have also a valid explanation about the difference in value. in these circumstances, the enhancement of value made cannot be sustained.accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.

Full Judgment

1. The appellant imported in July 2003 a consignment of mulberry silk fabrics. The unit price of purchase was 1 US Dollar per metre. Under the impugned order it has been held that the purchase price should be rejected and the goods should be assessed at a unit value of US Dollar 1.29 per metre. The reason for assessment of the goods at the enhanced value is that contemporaneously there was other import at the said higher price, 2. The contention of the appellant is that the enhancement of value is contrary to settled law inasmuch as every imported consignment is required to be assessed at its transaction value and not at the price of other imported goods. The appellants also point out that the higher value for the compared consignment could also be on account of the lower quantity under purchase. The appellant's purchase was 60,000 metres in quantity while the compared import was only 20,000 metres.

According to the appellants, the difference in price could have been on account of such vast difference in quantity.

3. The appellants are right in their contention that transaction value cannot be rejected merely on the ground that contemporaneously there was another import at higher price. There is no material in the present case to show that the transaction value did not represent the full commercial price of the goods under import. The appellants have also a valid explanation about the difference in value. In these circumstances, the enhancement of value made cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Vision Trade Links vs Cc Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge K Usha, N T C.N.B.