Rule 4. Transaction value of identical goods

Judgments on Rule 4

• Maruti Fabric Impex vs Ce & Cgst Noida — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. A written acceptance of value enhancement waives only the limited procedural right to a speaking order under Section 17(5) and, there being no estoppel against a statute, cannot foreclose the importer's statutory right…
• Mukesh Kumar vs Commissioner Of Customs (Ii), Chennai — CESTAT, 17 Feb 2026. Penalties under sections 112(b) and 114AA of the Customs Act can be imposed only where mens rea or active involvement is established, and retracted statements recorded u/s 108 cannot sustain duty demands unless tested…
• Commissioner Of Customs Import 1 Zone 1 vs M/S Essar Bulk Terminal Salaya Limited — CESTAT, 3 Apr 2025. Alleged overvaluation without duty consequence cannot sustain confiscation under section 111(m) or penalties under sections 112/114AA, and the price of goods for export to a country other than India is expressly barred…
• Commissioner Of Customs (Port) Kolkata vs M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. — Supreme Court of India, 27 Apr 2020. Rule 9(1)(e) cannot be invoked to add the value of post-importation services to the assessable value merely because the import forms part of a turnkey contract; a specific finding that import of the goods was…
• M/S. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.(Export), New Delhi — CESTAT, 29 Jul 2015. In a bona fide interpretational valuation dispute where the assessee has disclosed the relevant facts, there is no wilful misstatement or suppression, so the extended period of limitation, penalty and confiscation…
• ) M/S. S.S. Impex vs Commr. Of Customs (Port), Kolkata — CESTAT, 27 Mar 2012. Casting suspicion on the invoice produced by the importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of value; undervaluation must be proved by cogent evidence or comparable imports, and goods once held to be what was…
• ) M/S. A.N. Impex vs Commr. Of Customs (Port), Kolkata — CESTAT, 27 Mar 2012. Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 does not by itself provide a method for determination of value; it only permits rejection of the declared transaction value where reasonable doubt is established with…
• M/S Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And… — CESTAT, 2 Jun 2025. Classification of goods is a matter relating to chargeability and the burden of proof lies squarely upon the Revenue, which must adduce proper evidence and apply the General Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff before…
• Ms Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai Adj — CESTAT, 19 Aug 2024. An addition to assessable value under rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 can stand only on a specific finding that the payment was a condition of sale of the imported goods, with the initial onus of…
• Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs Vadodara-I — CESTAT, 4 Dec 2023. Where an EOU makes full and regular disclosures of its DTA clearances to the authorities, the value must be determined in accordance with Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (including…
• Sachin Kshirsagar vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 9 Jun 2022. A claim to an exemption benefit does not by itself establish intent to evade duty, and penalties on individuals cannot be sustained where the classification issue is contentious and their role in the alleged…
• Bhambhani Shipping Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 18 Jan 2022. A valuation report or other document cannot be relied upon in adjudication unless its author is examined and the noticee is permitted to cross-examine him, since denial of cross-examination is a violation of natural…
• M/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited Panipat vs K.S. Jagannathan & — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 5 Aug 2008. Even where a power exists, its exercise must be fair, reasonable and proportionate: absent even a prima facie finding that goods are liable to confiscation, conditions of provisional release securing the full value of…