CESTAT Delhi limits parallel invoice evidence to specific transactions without broad retrospective application

The Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal held that while parallel invoices serve as valid proof of customs undervaluation for specific consignments, they do not justify a blanket enhancement of past imports. Authorities cannot apply transaction values discovered during the investigation of a particular shipment across all historical or future imports without independent corroborative evidence for each individual consignment. Valuation under customs law requires specific proof pertaining to every distinct bill of entry rather than generalized assumptions.

Customs valuation disputes typically arise when investigative agencies uncover alternate financial records or parallel billing systems indicating actual transaction values higher than those declared to the exchequer. While statutory provisions permit the rejection of declared values upon discovery of reliable contrary evidence, the principle of natural justice and statutory assessment rules demand separate scrutiny for every distinct import transaction. Blanket enhancements without establishing undervaluation for each specific historical bill violate established legal frameworks governing customs assessments.

Importers and customs brokers must maintain meticulous audit trails of actual payments and procurement contracts to defend against arbitrary retroactive duty demands. Review past assessment orders and prepare comprehensive replies contesting generalized duty enhancements that lack transaction-specific evidence. Bottom line: customs authorities must prove undervaluation for every individual consignment rather than applying broad enhancements retroactively.