Rule 9. Residual method

Judgments on Rule 9

• Mahesh Agarwal Partner vs Cc Sea Ch - Ii — CESTAT, 13 Mar 2026. Where higher-value parallel documents are recovered from the importer's own possession and corroborated by voluntary Section 108 admissions and extra-commercial payments, declared transaction value may be rejected, the…
• 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…
• T N Malhotra vs Principal Commissioner, Customs-New… — CESTAT, 4 Jun 2024. The transaction value of past imports can be enhanced only on the basis of invoices or other documents pertaining to those very imports; loading the values of live consignments onto past bills of entry in the absence of…
• Cisco Commerce India Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 19 Oct 2022. Once the SVB has accepted a related-party transaction value under Rule 3(3)(a), the department cannot load value on the basis of the importer's own earlier higher-priced imports treated as 'contemporaneous', and any…
• 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…
• Anil Kumar Anand vs Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) — Supreme Court of India, 22 Apr 2019. Once the Valuation Rules, 2007 prescribe sequential application under Rule 3(4), the assessing authority has no option but to exhaust Rules 3 to 5 — including comparison with identical or similar goods imports with…
• Sony Pictures Home Entertainment India vs Airport, Mumbai — CESTAT, 23 Feb 2016. A royalty clause in a contract that also covers import of goods does not, ipso facto, permit addition to transaction value under rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (rule 10 of the 2007 Rules); only…
• 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…
• Forbo Sieglin G Movement Systems India vs Union Of India & Ors — Bombay High Court, 10 May 2013. Before rejecting the declared transaction value, the proper officer must under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 furnish in writing the grounds for doubting its truth or accuracy and give the importer a…
• ) 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…
• Nayara Energy Limited vs Jamnagar(Prev) — CESTAT, 8 Apr 2025. Whether floating crane/unloading charges incurred in moving cargo from a vessel to barges are transport costs includible in assessable value under Section 14 or loading-unloading costs covered by the statutory 1% is a…
• Commissioner, Customs… vs Cmr Nikkei India Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 21 Oct 2024. Under rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, the value of imported goods may be re-determined with reasonable flexibility (including reliance on NIDB data of contemporaneous imports irrespective of country of…
• 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…
• 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…
• Syska Led Lights Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India Through, The Secretary… — Bombay High Court, 25 Mar 2021. An order rejecting the declared transaction value and confiscating goods without a show-cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 and without written intimation of grounds and a hearing under Rule 12 of…
• Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt Ltd vs Cc (Import) Mumbai — CESTAT, 18 Jan 2019. Royalty paid under a technology agreement is includible in the value of imported goods under Rule 9(1)(c)/Rule 10(1)(c) of the Valuation Rules where, on the agreement's terms and the parties' course of dealing, it is a…

All 26 judgments