2001 (2) TMI 832 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty based on negotiated price after importation.
2. Validity of claim for refund of duty.
3. Reliability of examination results conducted by SGS.
4. Rejection of claim by the department and subsequent appeals.
5. Interpretation of contract terms regarding price negotiation and acceptance of consignment.
6. Compliance with customs procedures and involvement of customs officers in examination.

Analysis:

1. The appellant imported a consignment of metallurgical coke, and after examination by SGS, negotiations with the supplier led to a reduction in the price paid. The appellant claimed a refund of duty based on the negotiated price, which was rejected by the department due to pending assessment and full duty payment.

2. The claim for refund was deemed premature by the department as the assessment was pending clearance, and later rejected after finalization. The appellant's argument that the assessable value should be the negotiated price was not accepted, as the contract did not provide for price negotiation but only for rejection of the consignment.

3. The examination results by SGS were challenged by the department, citing lack of customs officers' involvement and the location of examination outside the customs area. The reliability of these results was questioned, leading to the rejection of the claim for refund.

4. The rejection of the claim by the department was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), who found the reasons provided by the Asstt. Collector valid, including the absence of price negotiation terms in the contract and the examination process conducted outside customs supervision.

5. The tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the negotiated price after importation was not in line with the terms of the contract, which allowed for rejection of the consignment but not for price negotiation after acceptance. It was concluded that the negotiated price was not the price contemplated for duty assessment.

6. The tribunal agreed with the department's stance that customs officers should have been involved in the examination process, and the failure to do so undermined the reliability of the examination results. The appellant's failure to follow proper customs procedures was highlighted as a reason for dismissing the appeal.