1983 (12) TMI 274 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of customs duty based on the value of imported goods, inclusion of insurance charges in the assessable value, validity of administrative instructions from the Central Board of Excise & Customs, determination of refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the assessment of customs duty on the importation of bagged urea. The customs authorities assessed the goods at a higher value than claimed by the importer, leading to a refund claim by the Food Corporation of India. The dispute centered around the inclusion of insurance charges in the assessable value of the goods, as the consignment was not insured. The appellant argued that as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, only the genuine price should be considered for assessment, and no charges should be added for insurance when goods are not insured.

The learned Consultant for the appellant contended that administrative instructions from the Central Board of Excise & Customs prohibited the addition of insurance charges when goods are uninsured. On the other hand, the Department's representative argued that insurance costs are typically included in the assessable value in international trade, even if actual insurance was not obtained. The Department relied on the argument that insurance charges are part of the conceptual value, despite the absence of actual insurance.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. It was observed that Section 14 of the Act mandates the assessment based on the genuine price of goods, without allowing for the inclusion of conceptual values like insurance charges. The Tribunal held that in this case, where the goods were not insured and the government had a monopoly on importation, insurance charges could not be added to the assessable value for customs duty purposes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the issue of the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act. It noted that the appellant initially claimed a higher value for refund but later revised it downwards. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim is subject to a limitation period, and the appellant cannot claim a higher refund amount at a later stage than what was originally claimed before the Assistant Collector.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ordered a reassessment of the goods excluding the addition of insurance charges, and granted a refund based on the revised assessable value. The appeal was allowed with the condition that the refund amount would be governed by the original claim made before the Assistant Collector, in accordance with Section 27 of the Customs Act.