2006 (2) TMI 167 - SC - Customs

Whether the appellant could not be granted abatement of the duty? Held that - Memorandum of understanding dated 10-9-1997, the agreement to sell dated 11-9-1997 as well as the bill of sale dated 26-12-1997 are after the goods had arrived in India in June, 1997. Under the circumstances, the appellant could not claim the sale in its favour on High Seas basis as indicated in the agreement of sale dated 11-9-1997. The Tribunal was right in observing that from the conduct of the parties it cannot be ruled out that the action seemed to be to evade the duty payable at the proper value. It is interesting to note that the bill of sale was executed by the importer on 26-12-1997. Thus the title to the goods passed to the appellant on 26-12-1997, i.e., after the order-in-original passed by the assessing authority on 23-12-1997. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Valuation of imported goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Legitimacy of the high seas sale claim.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Abatement of Duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant sought abatement of duty on the grounds that the warehoused goods had been damaged after unloading but before their examination under Section 17 due to an accident not caused by any willful act, negligence, or default of the importer. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) initially allowed this claim, referencing the Tribunal's decision in J.M. Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, emphasizing that no formal request for abatement was made to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, and thus, the necessary satisfaction required under Section 22 was not recorded. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's view, stating that without a written claim for abatement, the appellant could not be granted such relief.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The primary legal question was whether the value declared by the appellant (Rs. 12,01,00,000) could be accepted for duty assessment. The Assessing Authority had appraised the vessel's value based on the price paid by the importer to the foreign seller (US$ 68,49,839.00), as this was the price in the course of international trade. The Supreme Court affirmed this approach, noting that the transaction between the importer and the appellant was a domestic trade transaction and not part of international trade. Consequently, the value for duty assessment should be the price paid in the international transaction.

3. Legitimacy of the High Seas Sale Claim:
The appellant claimed that the vessel was purchased on a high seas basis, which would affect the valuation for customs duty purposes. However, the Supreme Court found that the sale between the importer and the appellant occurred after the vessel had already arrived in India. The Memorandum of Understanding and subsequent agreements were executed after the vessel's arrival, making the transaction a domestic sale rather than a high seas sale. The Court concluded that the conduct of the parties suggested an attempt to evade proper duty, and thus, the high seas sale claim was invalid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not entitled to abatement of duty under Section 22 due to the lack of a formal claim. The valuation of the vessel for duty purposes was correctly based on the international trade price, and the high seas sale claim was deemed invalid. The appellant's actions appeared to be aimed at evading the proper duty, and the Tribunal's restoration of the original assessment order was affirmed.

← Previous Next →