2013 (4) TMI 188 - AT - Customs

Valuation dispute refund claim - Equipments imported by appellant for setting up plant in India appellant had also paid to the supplier, system design and engineering charges. This amount was provisionally included in the assessable value of the imported goods and duty paid accordingly. However, subsequently, the assessee claimed refund of excess duty by submitting that the above charges were not includible in the assessable value as these charges were relatable to equipments indigenously procured by them. Refund claim was rejected by the department. Held that Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority as gross error of law was committed by both the authorities issue which ought to have been considered by these authorities was whether the design and engineering charges paid by was liable to be included in the assessable value of the imported goods under the Customs Valuation Rules 1963 which were in force during the period of imports.

Issues: Valuation dispute regarding design and engineering charges paid for imported equipments.

In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore addressed a valuation dispute concerning equipment imported by the assessee from M/s Five Call Badcock (FCB) for setting up a plant in India. The appellant had paid system design and engineering charges to the supplier, which were provisionally included in the assessable value of the imported goods under Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988. The assessee later claimed a refund, arguing that these charges were not includible as they were related to indigenously procured equipment. The original authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held that the charges were includible in the assessable value as they were paid in relation to the production of the imported goods. The appellant challenged this decision, citing the terms of the contract and judicial precedents such as Tata Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal noted that the Customs Valuation Rules 1963 were in force during the relevant period of imports, and the authorities incorrectly applied Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the 1988 Rules. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original authority for fresh adjudication under the correct legal framework, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing for the assessee.

The key issue in this case was the inclusion of design and engineering charges paid by the appellant to a foreign supplier in the assessable value of imported goods. The appellant argued that there was no connection between these charges and the imported equipment, relying on contractual terms and legal precedents. The authorities, however, held that the charges were includible as they were paid in relation to the production of the imported goods. The Tribunal found that there was a legal error in applying Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988, which were not in force during the relevant period of imports. Instead, the Tribunal noted that the Customs Valuation Rules 1963 should have been applied. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication under the correct legal framework.

Another significant aspect of this case was the reliance on judicial precedents by both the appellant and the authorities. The appellant cited judgments such as Tata Iron and Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise to support their argument that the design and engineering charges should not be included in the assessable value of the imported goods. On the other hand, the authorities referred to decisions like Mukund Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai to justify their position. The Tribunal considered these precedents but ultimately focused on the correct application of the relevant Customs Valuation Rules in force during the period of imports, leading to the decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal's decision to remand the case to the original authority was based on the finding that there was a fundamental legal error in the application of the Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal emphasized that the 1988 Rules were incorrectly applied instead of the 1963 Rules that were in force during the relevant period. By setting aside the previous orders and allowing the appeal by way of remand, the Tribunal ensured that the case would be reconsidered in light of the correct legal framework, with the assessee given a fair opportunity to present their case. This approach aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and proper legal interpretation in resolving the valuation dispute effectively.

← Previous Next →