2001 (10) TMI 92 - SC - Customs

Assessable value of the imported goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962 Held that - Landing charges at fixed percentage was added to the CIF value as provided for in Rule 9(2). Whether clause (b) of Rule 9(2) takes within its fold the charges incurred on account of wharfage is one aspect. Irrespective of that if as held by the Appellate Commissioner the wharfage expenses and stock losses were incurred after the delivery of the goods and on the conclusion of the event of importation the question of including such charges in the assessable value does not arise even according to the ratio of decision in Garden Silk Mills Ltd. (1999 (9) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). The finding of the Appellate Commissioner has not been assailed in the memorandum of appeal or even in the course of arguments. Alternatively even the finding of the Tribunal that the disputed items are components of landing charges for which extra one per cent was added has not been assailed. The Revenue virtually invites the Court to decide a legal question in vacuum - without reference to the true factual position. The true nature of these charges and the point of time at which they were incurred cannot be appreciated without any details and relevant material before us. Thus dismiss the appeals for want of sufficient particulars and relevant material necessary to appreciate the controversy in proper perspective.

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value of imported goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The respondent imported kerosene oil sold by Indian Oil Corporation on high sea sale basis. The controversy was about the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The Assistant Commissioner assessed based on final invoices including CIF value, service charges, and other charges like demurrage, wharfage, and stock loss.

2. Section 14(1) of the Customs Act deems the value for customs duty as the price at which goods are sold in international trade. Sub-section (1A) states that the price shall be determined as per rules. The Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, framed by the Central Government under Section 156, specify the value components for imported goods.

3. Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules includes transport costs, loading charges, and insurance in the value of imported goods. The rule provides percentages for costs when actual amounts are not ascertainable. These rules were applicable to the case of importation in 1995.

4. The Customs Authorities and Tribunal had differing views on including wharfage charges and stock losses in the assessable value. The Appellate Commissioner excluded these charges as they were incurred after delivery at the place of importation, not relevant to assessable value.

5. The Revenue's appeal challenged the Tribunal's order dismissing their appeal. The Senior Counsel relied on a previous court decision to argue for including wharfage charges and stock losses in the assessable value based on the valuation methodology in Section 14(1).

6. The Court noted that the true nature and timing of charges like wharfage and stock losses were not adequately presented in the appeal. Without sufficient details and relevant material, the Court dismissed the appeals, as the findings of the Appellate Authorities did not warrant interference.

7. The Court emphasized the importance of factual details and material in deciding legal questions accurately. The divergence in approach between the Tribunal and the Appellate Commissioner regarding the disputed charges was noted, but without proper information, the appeals were dismissed with no costs awarded.