2001 (5) TMI 76 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of value under Section 14 of the Customs Act.
2. Benefit of Notification No. 220/90-Cus. not extended to the importer.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Determination of value under Section 14 of the Customs Act
The appellant imported goods from Iraq to Nepal and then to India. The Customs Authorities assessed the goods initially but later found the assessment incorrect, issuing a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for demanding differential duty. The appellant contended that the authorities did not determine the transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that depreciation should have been given based on the value of the goods imported from Nepal, not just on the original value from Iraq. The appellant's advocate emphasized the importance of a Chartered Engineer's certificate for value determination, which the authorities had allegedly ignored. However, the department argued that since there was no sale involved, the correct method was to give depreciation on the original value from Iraq, which the lower authorities had correctly done.

Issue 2: Benefit of Notification No. 220/90-Cus.
The appellant's second grievance was regarding the benefit of Notification No. 220/90-Cus., which was not extended to the importer. The appellant's counsel argued that since the notification was in force at the time of the SCN, the benefit should have been given. However, the department contended that the notification came into effect after the Bill of Entry was presented, making the benefit inapplicable. The Tribunal agreed with the department, stating that as per Section 15 of the Customs Act, the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry determines the applicable rate of duty or tariff value, and since the notification was not in force at that time, the benefit could not be granted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, stating that since there was no sale involved in the transfer of goods, depreciation on the original value from Iraq was the correct method of valuation. Additionally, the benefit of Notification No. 220/90-Cus. could not be extended as it was not in force at the time of presenting the Bill of Entry. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.