Finding the reasons such as the importer had used the name of another firm to avoid sales tax, imports were made from trader and not from manufacturer, and the value declared was even less than the value of steel scrap, as not relatable to value of goods, CESTAT Delhi has allowed the appeal of the importer.
Similarly, the reason that the word ‘telescopic’ was not mentioned in the documents, in case of imports of drawer slides, was also held as not relevant for the purpose of value.
The Tribunal in the case of Aman Trading Company v. Commissioner in this regard also rejected the contention of the department that since the impugned goods were bought on high seas, same could not be considered to be at the same level with the goods imported elsewhere directly.
Further department’s back calculation allowing 5% selling expenses and profit margin, was also rejected in the absence of any evidence.