Rule 12. Rejection of declared value

Judgments on Rule 12

• 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…
• Shri Gagan Vohra vs Commissioner Central Excise, Customs,… — CESTAT, 24 Aug 2026. A declared transaction value may be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and re-determined sequentially under Rules 4–9, because voluntary Section 108 statements to Customs officers (who are not…
• 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…
• Ms Kseg India International vs Ce & Cgst Noida — CESTAT, 18 Jul 2024. Enhancement of the value of imported goods based on a DGOV circular, without rejecting the declared value under Rule 12 and applying the Valuation Rules sequentially from Rule 4 onwards, is unsustainable, and goods that…
• 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…
• Navakar Impex Pvt Ltd vs Chennai (Port Export) — CESTAT, 29 May 2024. If the charge of under-valuation cannot be supported either by evidence or information about comparable imports, the benefit of doubt must go to the importer and the invoice price has to be accepted as the transaction…
• M/S Global Technologies And Research vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs New… — Supreme Court of India, 15 Mar 2024. Where the Customs Act prescribes no limitation for the Committee of Commissioners to direct an appeal under Section 129A(2), its decision must still be taken within a reasonable time, and where earlier imports of…
• M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
• Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 17 May 2019. The declared transaction value in a bill of entry cannot be rejected unless the proper officer has reasonable doubt as to its truth or accuracy supported by 'certain reasons' and contemporaneous corroborative material,…
• 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…
• Hazel Mercantile Limited vs Kandla Customs — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. Where the department's test reports are inconclusive or bested by more specialized reports under the 'most akin' test, and the disputed goods are merely a species of the declared genus (NGL within Naphtha) covered by…
• Atul Automation vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 23 Jun 2026. Second-hand capital goods that are electronics and IT goods are 'restricted' under Para 2.31(I)(b) of FTP 2023 and confiscable under Section 111(d) absent DGFT authorisation, but a Section 114AA penalty cannot be…
• M/S Vaibhav International vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Karnataka High Court, 9 Mar 2026. No show cause notice can be issued under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act while assessment remains provisional under Section 18, since the 'relevant date' under Explanation 1(b) to Section 28 runs only from adjustment…
• M/S. Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 3 Dec 2025. Goods whose value declared in the Bill of Entry does not correspond to the proper assessable value are liable to confiscation under Section 111(m), and where the undervaluation is admitted, penalty under Section 112(a)…
• 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…

All 31 judgments