9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs rejecting the claim for refund of excess duty of customs paid. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation (India) Ltd. against the rejection of their claim for a refund of excess duty of customs paid. The appellants had entered into a contract with a foreign supplier for the purchase of sulphur at a certain rate per metric tonne. Due to an increase in the price of sulphur, the suppliers agreed to supply a portion of the quantity at the old rate and the remaining at a higher rate. The dispute arose regarding the levy of duty on the first 5,000 metric tonnes, with the appellants arguing that duty should be calculated based on the original contract rate, while the respondents contended that the prevailing rate at the time of importation should apply. The Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 14(1), was crucial in determining the valuation of goods for the levy of customs duty. The section mandates that the value of goods for customs duty purposes shall be deemed to be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation. The appellants acknowledged the price increase since the original contract but emphasized that they had paid the lower rate for the first 5,000 metric tonnes as per the supplier's agreement. However, the prevailing rate at the time of importation was $60 per metric tonne, which was the basis for the duty calculation. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the levy of customs duty should be based on the prevailing price of the goods at the time and place of importation, as per the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the original contract price was not relevant for duty calculation, and the actual price paid by the appellants for the first 5,000 metric tonnes was not disputed. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, rejecting the refund claim was deemed correct in law and based on factual evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower authority.
|
