9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 3161/88 dated 29-8-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. - Dispute over abatement in value of imported PVC Resin due to damage during voyage. - Determination of extent of damage and appropriate abatement under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962. - Consideration of test reports, credit notes, and other evidence in assessing the value of damaged goods. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, concerning the abatement in value of 1875 M. Tons of PVC Resin imported from Yugoslavia due to damage during the voyage. The appellants claimed 50% abatement in value due to contamination and damage to the goods. The Deputy Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had determined the abatement at 30% based on the analysis of samples by the Customs Laboratory, showing contamination to the extent of 6.4%. The appellants contended that the goods were rendered useless for manufacturing standard quality items and should be valued with a 50% abatement based on a credit note from the supplier acknowledging the damage. The appellants argued that the test report relied upon by the Department was not provided to them, and the samples taken were not representative of the entire lot. They maintained that the percentage of contamination was irrelevant as any level of contamination would make the consignment unusable. The Department countered, stating that the samples were drawn in the presence of the party and retested upon request, revealing specific percentages of impurities. The Department relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support the validity of the test report and emphasized that the value determination should be based on the actual damage caused. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented and examined the evidence on record. It noted that while there was no dispute about the damage to the goods, the crucial issue was the extent of damage for the purpose of abatement under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the Department's approach of determining the abatement based on the test report's findings of 6.4% contamination was justified. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants' reliance on the supplier's credit note was not conclusive evidence of the extent of depreciation in value. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that a significant portion of the goods was in sound condition, and the overall depreciation in value should be reasonably assessed at 30%, as determined by the lower authorities based on the test reports of the contaminated goods. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concurring with the lower authorities' decision on the abatement in value of the damaged PVC Resin. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering objective evidence, such as test reports, in determining the extent of damage and appropriate abatement under the Customs Act.
|
