9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1530 - AT - CustomsFinalization of provisional assessment - whether the Lower Authorities can finalize the provisionally assessed shipping bills, based on the outcome of analysis report and re-determine the transaction value according to the report of the Deputy Chief Commissioner? - Held that - both the Lower Authorities have incorrectly appreciated the law which is governing the valuation of the consignments of iron ore cleared for export is as per provisions of Section 14 and 18(2) of Customs Act, 1962 - similar issue decided in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam Vs. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. 2016 (11) TMI 300 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where it was held that When the department accepts the BRC, as well as the final invoice of the exporter and has no doubt or dispute that amount other than what was reflected in final invoice was not received by the latter, the BRC has to be given credibility and reliance - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Whether Lower Authorities can finalize provisionally assessed shipping bills based on analysis report and re-determine transaction value according to Deputy Chief Commissioner's report. Analysis: The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad involved multiple appeals with a common issue. The appellants, in these cases, had filed shipping bills for exporting iron ore fine, declaring value and Fe content percentage as per contractual agreements. The goods were provisionally assessed pending the final analysis report to determine the export goods' value based on Fe content and other parameters. The assessment was finalized by enhancing the transaction value based on various documents submitted by the appellants and Customs Laboratory test reports, considering moisture content. The appellants contested the finalization, arguing that the transaction value remained the same, and the Bank Realization Certificate should be the authentic document for finalizing the provisional shipping bill, which the Revenue disagreed with. In the case of BTM Exports, the First Appellate Authority emphasized the importance of moisture content in determining the final value of exported iron ore for duty calculation. The Authority highlighted that the percentage of moisture content is crucial for assessing the correct duty amount and that testing samples is essential beyond just checking Fe content. Regarding Rungta Sons Pvt. Ltd., the First Appellate Authority concluded that the export duty must be discharged based on the re-determined value of the consignment. The Authority clarified that the transaction value of export goods should be the price actually paid or payable, as per the Customs Valuation Rules, emphasizing that the Bank Realization Certificate value is not the sole determinant of transaction value. The Tribunal found that the Lower Authorities had misinterpreted the law governing the valuation of iron ore consignments for export under the Customs Act. Citing previous judgments, including Commissioner of Customs (Export), Goa Vs. V.G.M. Exports, the Tribunal reiterated that the transaction value, as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, is crucial for duty liability discharge when buyer and seller are unrelated, and price is the primary consideration. Referring to a similar case involving Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam Vs. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the credibility of Bank Realization Certificates and final invoices in determining transaction value for duty discharge. Based on settled law and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of transaction value in duty calculation based on actual payment or payable price. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned orders unsustainable and set them aside, allowing the appeals based on established legal principles and precedents.
|
