9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refund claim of customs duty paid on parts of steam turbine. 2. Assessment under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Consideration of manufacturer's certificate for individual item value. 4. Reassessment of goods imported under different tariff headings. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a refund claim of customs duty paid on parts of a steam turbine. The Collector rejected the claim, upholding the Assistant Collector's assessment under Section 19 of the Customs Act. The appellants imported parts with a consolidated value of DM 12300, but the authorities assessed duty at the highest rate due to the absence of itemwise values. The main issue was whether the goods constituted a set of articles warranting assessment under Section 19. 2. Section 19 of the Customs Act governs the determination of duty for goods consisting of articles liable to different rates. The provision allows for duty to be charged at the highest rate when item values are not available. However, if the importer provides evidence of individual item values to the satisfaction of the proper officer, duty can be charged separately at applicable rates. In this case, the manufacturer's certificate indicating individual item values was not considered by the Collector, leading to a remand for reconsideration of the refund claim based on the certificate. 3. A miscellaneous application was filed to include the manufacturer's certificate on record, which detailed the individual prices of each imported article. The certificate was not before the lower authorities initially but was directed to be considered along with a letter to the manufacturer. The application was allowed for the Collector to review the certificate and letter in the assessment process. 4. Another application sought reassessment of goods imported under different tariff headings, claiming they were easily recognizable as parts of a steam turbine. However, the application was rejected as the assessment was not appealed against in a timely manner. The Tribunal emphasized that the forum was not suitable for challenging assessment orders and advised seeking remedy through the proper appellate channels. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed a reconsideration of the refund claim based on the manufacturer's certificate, emphasized the importance of providing individual item values for duty assessment, and clarified the appropriate avenues for challenging assessment decisions.
|
