Formal provisions in tax court procedural law represent an absolute threshold that determines whether a dispute can be examined on its merits or conclude with an inadmissible verdict. The case of PT PS serves as a crucial precedent on how inaccuracy in calculating the appeal submission period and proving the authority of the signatory can be fatal to a taxpayer's legal efforts. This dispute originated from the Respondent's correction of the customs value for the importation of Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coils from China, where the declared value in the Import Declaration (PIB) of USD 125,324.08 was annulled and increased to USD 129,665.12 due to inadequate supporting documentation.
The conflict escalated when the Respondent identified discrepancies between the Sales Contract and the Invoice, coupled with restricted access to the Petitioner's accounting data. The Petitioner argued that the price difference resulted from negotiations and repeat orders, yet remained reluctant to disclose comprehensive internal financial data due to confidentiality reasons. Instead of dissecting the validity of the transaction value under Article 15 of the Customs Law, the Board of Judges discovered significant formal defects. The appeal submitted by PT PS was detected to have exceeded the 60-day deadline as stipulated in Article 35 paragraph (2) of the Tax Court Law. Furthermore, the individual who signed the appeal letter lacked a strong legal basis in the Company's Deed to act as a legal representative for the entity.
The Board of Judges delivered a decisive resolution by issuing an "Inadmissible" (Not Acceptable) verdict because mandatory formal requirements were not met. Legally, fulfilling formal aspects is a non-negotiable form of compliance with procedural law. This decision reaffirms that even if a taxpayer possesses strong substantive arguments regarding customs valuation, such legal rights will be forfeited if litigation administrative procedures are neglected. Consequently, the Import Duty and Import-Related Tax (PDRI) corrections established by the Respondent remain valid and binding without any examination of the transaction value's truth in court. In conclusion, administrative order in monitoring deadlines and legal standing of counsel is the main pillar determining success in the Tax Court.
A Comprehensive Analysis and the Tax Court Decision on This Dispute Are Available Here
tpc.consulting 
tpc.consulting 
info@taxindo.co.id