Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

M/s Global Technologies and Research vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import)

Not available · 2024 INSC 204Decided 15 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice Abhay S. Oka · Justice Pankaj Mithal · Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background

The appellant, a regular importer of camera stabilizer devices, imported a consignment in February 2018 at a declared value that customs intelligence officers suspected was understated. After examining the goods and comparing them with the appellant's own earlier imports of identical or similar items at higher prices, customs authorities seized the goods, rejected the declared transaction value, and imposed a higher assessable value along with penalties, a view the customs appellate tribunal (CESTAT) upheld.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld CESTAT's factual finding that the imported goods were identical or similar to goods the same importer had brought in earlier at higher declared prices, noting that the customs authorities had given detailed, reasoned grounds for rejecting the declared value as required by law. Since the only real difference the appellant pointed to was a vague label change ("unpopular brand"), and cogent reasons supported the department's own valuation, the Court found no error in the enhanced valuation or the penalties imposed, and dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

Customs authorities can lawfully reject an importer's self-declared invoice price when they can show, with proper reasoning, that identical or similar goods were valued higher in the importer's own recent transactions: a low invoice price alone is not conclusive proof of genuine value.

M/s Global Technologies and Research vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import) – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware