9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of freight value for customs duty assessment on goods imported by air compared to sea. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi delves into the issue of whether, in cases of goods imported by air, the value for customs duty assessment under Section 14 of the Customs Act should consider air freight or sea freight if the goods were imported by sea. The Collector (Appeals) in Madras and Bombay had differing opinions on this matter. The Madras Collector upheld the use of actual air freight for assessment, while the Bombay Collector emphasized the importance of determining the normal price with reference to the place of importation, i.e., the airport in this case. The Bombay Collector also highlighted that the Government of India supported this view in a revision application. The appellants argued that the Tribunal had previously addressed this issue and set aside the Madras Collector's decision, emphasizing the acceptance of sea freight for similar goods when ascertainable. The Tribunal accepted the appeal, remanded the case for a fresh decision, and noted the consistency in the appellants' claims across various orders. Moreover, the appellants pointed out instances where the same Collector (Appeals) had passed different orders on similar appeals, both allowing and rejecting claims. The Tribunal, considering the previous decisions and evidence provided by the appellants, concluded that the matter was no longer res Integra and directed adherence to its previous orders. The judgment also addressed a ground raised by the Bombay Collector regarding a Government of India decision, which the Tribunal scrutinized in light of EEC Regulations and the practice in the European Community. The Tribunal disagreed with the Government of India's reasoning, supporting the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in a specific case from 1983 regarding the unaffected value of goods under Section 14 irrespective of the mode of transport. The judgment ultimately allowed the appeals and provided consequential relief to the appellants, emphasizing the importance of consistent application of customs valuation principles.
|
