2007 (6) TMI 357 - AT - Customs

Valuation for countervailing duty - whether the button cells imported by the appellants are assessable to CVD on the basis of their retail sale price ascertained by the department or on their transaction value?

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original demanding differential duty of customs on imported button cells.
2. Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures Act and Rules to the imported goods.
3. Assessment of CVD based on retail sale price versus transaction value.
4. Interpretation of "commodity in packaged form" for assessment purposes.
5. Clarifications provided by CBEC Circulars regarding assessment under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appeal sought to vacate the Order-in-Original demanding differential duty of customs on button cells imported by the appellant. The Commissioner imposed a penalty on the appellant equal to the duty demanded, under Section 114A of the Customs Act.

Issue 2:
The case involved the interpretation of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and Rules in relation to the imported button cells. The Commissioner found that the button cells were pre-packaged commodities requiring a declaration of retail sale price upon import.

Issue 3:
The main question was whether the button cells were assessable to CVD based on their retail sale price or transaction value. The Commissioner assessed CVD based on retail sale price, leading to the demand for differential duty.

Issue 4:
The appellants argued that since the imported goods were in bulk, Section 4A of the Central Excise Act should not apply. They cited clarifications by the Hyderabad Commissioner and CBEC Circulars to support their claim.

Issue 5:
The CBEC Circulars provided clarifications on the assessment of CVD under the Central Excise Act. The Circulars emphasized the requirement for the provisions of SWMA to mandate the declaration of retail sale price for assessment under Section 4A.

The Tribunal analyzed the case records and submissions. They found that the Commissioner's interpretation of "commodity in packaged form" for assessment based on retail price was erroneous. The Tribunal referred to CBEC Circulars to support their decision that the imported goods, being in bulk packaging, did not attract assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the impugned order demanding differential duty based on MRP was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the appeal being allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and CBEC Circulars regarding the assessment of CVD on imported goods.