2006 (6) TMI 274 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Valuation dispute, remission of duty, detention certificate, damage assessment, remand for redetermination under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act 1962.

Valuation Dispute:
The appellants imported Star Anise from China, leading to a valuation dispute with the department. The department rejected their declared value, resulting in a higher assessed value of USD. 4200/- PMT. The Commissioner (Appeal) accepted the appellants' plea, setting aside the department's order. However, the matter of valuation was further complicated due to subsequent damage assessment and redetermination under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act.

Remission of Duty:
The appellants sought remission of duty on damaged goods, citing the Apex Court decision and CBEC Circular. The High Court allowed clearance of goods on payment of customs duty, issuance of a detention certificate, and pursuit of ordinary remedies for damages. The appellants' application for revision under Section 23 was rejected by the Customs Department and the Commissioner of Customs, leading to the appeal.

Detention Certificate:
The High Court directed the Customs Department to issue a detention certificate for the period from July 19, 2002, to October 22, 2002. This directive aimed to facilitate the clearance process for the damaged goods and address the demurrage charges incurred by the appellants.

Damage Assessment:
An inspection conducted by SGS India Pvt Ltd. revealed damage to the goods to the extent of 52%. The appellants filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, seeking remission of duty on the damaged goods, a detention certificate, and payment of the market value of the goods. The High Court's order provided a framework for the appellants to clear the goods and pursue claims for damages.

Remand for Redetermination under Section 22(2):
The Tribunal found that the appellants' case required redetermination under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act. Due to the valuation dispute and subsequent damage assessment, the matter needed to be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for a fresh assessment. The appellants were granted the benefit of Section 22(2) up to the reassessment under Section 17(4) for a fair determination of duties owed on the damaged goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for remand, emphasizing the need for redetermination under Section 22(2) and directing the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to reconsider the issue. All aspects of damage assessment and duty remission were kept open for further consideration, ensuring a comprehensive review of the appellants' case.

(Pronounced in Court on 8-6-2006)