2013 (2) TMI 53 - HC - Customs

Refund of Custom Duty - Assessable value - Ship for breaking Cost of freight and insurance - Rule 10 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of imported Goods) Rules, 2007 Section 130E of the Customs Act Issue relating to rate of duty or the value of the goods - Held that - Following the decision in case of NAVIN CHEMICALS MFG. & TRADING CO. LTD. (1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that the Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret the expression the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment . Therefore, appeal is dismissed only on the ground of maintainability without entering into the merits

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's judgment on inclusion of freight and insurance charges in assessable value for customs duty calculation; Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain appeal against Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a ship-breaker, contested the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, which allowed the Revenue's appeal and overturned the Appellate Commissioner's order. The dispute arose from the assessment of customs duty on a ship purchased by the appellant for breaking. The assessable value was initially determined without considering freight and insurance costs for transporting the ship. The duty demand was revised after the appellant provided these details, leading to a refund claim for alleged excess duty paid.

2. The Tribunal, in its judgment, emphasized the inclusion of transport, handling, and insurance costs in the ship's valuation for customs duty purposes. It set aside the Appellate Commissioner's order, prompting the appellant to challenge this decision. The key legal question framed was whether Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, or Rule 7 should apply in determining the assessable value.

3. During the final hearing, a jurisdictional issue was raised regarding the High Court's competence to entertain the appeal. The Department argued that, as per section 130E of the Customs Act, such appeals should go to the Supreme Court. The appellant countered, citing precedent and the nature of the issue concerning the assessable value of the goods for customs duty collection. The Court noted that the controversy centered on the assessable value, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance on similar matters.

4. Citing relevant legal provisions and precedents, the Court concluded that the appeal's maintainability was the primary concern. It highlighted the exclusion clause under section 130 of the Customs Act, which limits High Court jurisdiction in cases related to duty rates or goods' value for assessment purposes. The Court dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of jurisdiction without delving into the substantive merits of the case.

In summary, the judgment addressed the dispute over including freight and insurance charges in the assessable value for customs duty calculation. It also clarified the High Court's jurisdictional limits in entertaining appeals related to duty rates and goods' valuation, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on maintainability grounds.