9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Import of drawings and designs, Valuation under Customs Tariff Heading, Applicability of Rule 9(1)(e) of Customs Valuation Rules. Analysis: The case involved the import of drawings and designs by M/s. Jayaswala Neco Ltd. valued at Rs. 44 lakhs under Bill of Entry No. 1194/96. The Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo, New Delhi confiscated the goods and imposed a fine of Rs. 11 lakhs with a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The order classified the imported items under Customs Tariff Heading 8502.39 as part of T.G. set, Turbine, based on the Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant contended that the previous import of TG set and the import of drawings and designs were separate transactions and should not be valued together. The appellant argued that the drawings and designs were not for the turbine sets previously imported, as they were meant for post-import activities under a different contract. The contracts showed distinct consideration for the turbine sets and the drawings/designs, indicating separate transactions. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing that only payments made as a condition of sale of the imported goods are to be added to the assessable value. It was concluded that the drawings and designs were not a condition for the sale of the turbine sets, and thus Rule 9(1)(e) was not applicable. The Tribunal found that the two transactions were distinct, with separate consideration for the turbine sets and the drawings/designs. The payment for the drawings and designs was not obligatory for the sale of the imported goods, leading to the decision that the cost of drawings and designs should not be added to the cost of the TG sets. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Customs authority was directed to assess the drawings and designs separately and release them to the appellants.
|
