9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Short levy of duty on imported master jumbo film rolls for use in manufacturing cinematographic polyester film. Analysis: The primary issue in the present case revolves around whether there was a short levy of duty on master jumbo film rolls imported by the respondents for the production of cinematographic polyester film. The dispute arose from the alleged discrepancy in the quantity of goods as reflected in the inter plant quality packaging report/jumbo tickets compared to the quantity declared in the documents submitted to customs along with the Bill of Entry for clearance. The Chief Commissioner, after thorough examination, concluded that there was no basis for charging a differential duty based on the quantity indicated in the IQP reports/jumbo tickets. The Chief Commissioner highlighted the absence of evidence demonstrating that the respondents had received a higher quantity than declared or had made additional payments to the foreign supplier. Consequently, the Chief Commissioner emphasized that the transaction value declared by the respondents should be accepted, as there was no proof of any excess quantity received or paid for. Furthermore, it was noted that 5% of the total quantity was considered as waste, and the usable quantity was approximately 95%, aligning with industry practices and commercial norms. The seller only charged the buyer for the usable quantity, as per the agreement between the parties. In the appeal memorandum, the Revenue challenged the Chief Commissioner's determination regarding the percentage of waste, arguing that the usable quantity exceeded the invoiced quantity, thereby establishing the short payment of duty. However, despite this contention, the core issue remained unaltered - the absence of any material evidence to dispute the transaction value declared by the respondents. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned orders in both cases, emphasizing that the unchallenged transaction value must be accepted. The Tribunal reiterated that without concrete proof indicating an overpayment for a higher quantity received, the rejection of the transaction value and the charge of short payment of duty could not be sustained. Consequently, the appeals were rejected, affirming the decision based on the absence of evidence supporting the Revenue's claims and the satisfactory explanation provided by the respondents regarding the discrepancy between the IQP report quantity and the invoiced quantity.
|
