1995 (1) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of old and used tyres under specific customs headings.
2. Levying countervailing duty on imported goods.
3. Valuation of imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Import of old and used tyres under specific customs headings:
The case involved M/s. M.A. Exports appealing against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, who held that the assessable value of the goods should be Rs. 2,00,000. The dispute arose as the goods described as rubber tyres for retreading were found to be old and used tyres. The importer claimed that the goods should be considered as raw materials under a specific chapter heading. The argument centered around whether countervailing duty should be levied on old and used tyres. The appellant argued that since the tyres were not manufactured by them, countervailing duty should not be applicable. However, the authorities cited a previous judgment to support the levy of countervailing duty on imported goods, even if they were not manufactured in India. The tribunal held that the imported goods fell under a specific customs heading and countervailing duty was applicable accordingly.

2. Levying countervailing duty on imported goods:
The tribunal considered the issue of countervailing duty levied on the imported old and used tyres. The appellant argued against the levy of countervailing duty, stating that the tyres were not manufactured by them and thus should be exempt. However, the authorities relied on a previous Supreme Court judgment to support the imposition of countervailing duty on imported goods, even if they were not manufactured in India. The tribunal upheld the levy of countervailing duty based on the specific customs heading and rates prescribed for the imported goods.

3. Valuation of imported goods:
The tribunal addressed the valuation of the imported goods, which was set at Rs. 2,00,000 by the adjudicating authority. The appellant challenged this valuation, claiming that the authority did not provide reasons for rejecting the invoice value and did not comply with valuation rules. The tribunal found that the authority had not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning for rejecting the transaction value declared by the appellant. As a result, the tribunal accepted the value declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry and invoices covering the imported goods. The tribunal modified the impugned order based on this finding and disposed of the appeal accordingly.