2023 (7) TMI 781 - AT - Customs

Valuation - inclusion of freight in the assessable value for the purpose of assessment or not - Rule 9 (1) (b) (i) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - HELD THAT - It is brought out from the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent as well as records that the there was an issue of adding the element of freight to each export which was incorrect - it is found that the same has been excluded by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the matter has put forward the points for consideration at arithmetic level as well as legal level. These points have been correctly considered by the adjudicating authority in the de novo order. On perusal of the grounds stated in this appeal filed by the department, it is found that the argument put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the department has not put forward any specific point to negate the calculation of the differential duty is not without substance - it is also noted that the very same reason was the basis to dismiss the appeal filed by the department by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal filed by the department is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in this case are the finalization of assessment regarding the inclusion of retrieved platinum in the value of imported catalyst, duty exemption under Notification 296/92, valuation method, and the differential duty amount.

Finalization of Assessment:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the assessment finalization by the adjudicating authority. The imported catalyst included retrieved platinum from spent catalysts exported earlier. The retrieved platinum was supplied 'free of cost' to the importer as per the contract terms with the foreign supplier. The provisional assessments were made under Customs Act, 1962, pending examination of the value of the platinum sponge in the imported catalyst. Notification 296/92 provided duty exemption for the retrieved platinum, but it was withdrawn in 1994. The assessment was finalized without any relief or notification issued by the government.

Valuation Method and Differential Duty:
The appellant argued that the valuation method in the de novo order was unclear, especially regarding the international price of platinum sponge and the lack of cross-verification for platinum quality. The appellant also raised concerns about the exclusion of freight and insurance charges in the assessment. The respondent explained that the valuation followed Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, and the international 'Johnson Matthey Platinum table' was used for platinum valuation. The certificate of analysis from the foreign exporter was used to quantify the platinum usage. Discrepancies in the original and de novo assessments were attributed to rectifying mistakes in including freight and duty paid earlier and using the prevailing platinum value.

Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the department. It was noted that the department's grounds for appeal were generic and lacked specific points to challenge the differential duty calculation. The adjudicating authority had correctly considered the points raised by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the de novo order. The Tribunal found no substantial reason to interfere with the assessment finalization, as the grounds of appeal were based on surmises without concrete arguments. The impugned order finalizing the assessment was sustained.