COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (I) vs M/S. AASU EXIM PVT. LTD. — C.A. No. 4479/2006

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010156732006

Filing Date

01-Jul-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 4479/2006

Diary Number

15673/2006

Order Date

21-Nov-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (I)

    Adv. B. KRISHNA PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S. AASU EXIM PVT. LTD.

    Adv. M. P. DEVANATH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Nov-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 21-Nov-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

  4. 14-Nov-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  5. 09-Nov-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  6. 08-Nov-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  7. 02-Nov-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  8. 01-Nov-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  9. 31-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  10. 26-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  11. 25-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  12. 24-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  13. 12-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  14. 11-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  15. 10-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  16. 05-Oct-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  17. 20-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  18. 14-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  19. 13-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  20. 12-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  21. 07-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  22. 16-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 19-Nov-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 02-Nov-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 05-Oct-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 13-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 09-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  28. 27-Nov-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  29. 03-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  30. 01-Jul-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 4479/2006

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 004479/2006 The Supreme Court dismissed the Commissioner of Customs' appeal against the Customs Appellate Tribunal's January 2006 order, which had reversed a differential duty demand of Rs. 4,79,11,879 against AASU Exim Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee's grading of imported polyester yarns (A, B, C grades) was supported by undisputed manufacturer documentation and Taiwan Board of Trade confirmation, and that Revenue's transaction value determination based on a standing order violated Customs Valuation Rules by lacking proper contemporaneous records. The Court held that the Tribunal reached a legally permissible conclusion on the material facts and that Revenue's arguments raised only factual corrections, not substantial questions of law required for Supreme Court jurisdiction under Section 130E(b). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case