9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether notional landing charges added by the Department in the computation of assessable value are without basis. 2. Whether the levy of additional duty of customs should be based on C.I.F. value or the value as defined in Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Whether packing charges are to be excluded from the assessable value in accordance with exemption Notification No. 184/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellants contested the inclusion of notional landing charges by the Department in the assessable value, arguing that only the C.I.F. value should be considered. The appellants' claims were rejected by the authorities, stating that landing charges are part of the total cost of making goods available for delivery to the importer, thus justifying their inclusion in the assessable value as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld this view based on previous judgments, including Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, which held that landing charges should be calculated as a percentage of the C.I.F. value. Issue 2: Regarding the levy of additional duty of customs, the appellants argued that adding customs duty and auxiliary duty to the C.I.F. value amounts to double taxation. However, the authorities maintained that such addition is authorized by the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act. Citing Ashok Traders v. Union of India, the Tribunal confirmed that for the purpose of calculating additional duty, the assessable value includes the aggregate value of imported goods plus customs duty chargeable on the article. Issue 3: The appellants also claimed that packing charges should be excluded from the assessable value under Notification No. 184/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. However, the authorities held that the packing charges were part of the goods at the time of importation and did not qualify for exemption under the notification. The Tribunal referred to Polyset Corporation v. Collector of Customs, which clarified that only goods imported or exported in packages are exempt under the notification, not individual packages. The Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision, stating that the appellants did not meet the conditions of the notification. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no fault with the impugned orders passed by the authorities below, as they were consistent with the legal principles established in the cited cases. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and dismissed the appeals.
|
