9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellants purchased the goods on high seas sale basis. 2. Whether the assessable value should be based on the invoice of M/s. MMTC or the foreign seller. 3. Whether service charges should be added to the assessable value. 4. Whether the extended period for demand and penalties is applicable in the case of M/s. SAIL. Summary: 1. High Seas Sale Basis: The appellants contended that the sale was not on a high seas basis as both parties were Indian. However, the Tribunal found that the appellants purchased the goods from M/s. MMTC on high seas sale basis. The Bill of Entry presented by the appellants indicated high seas sale, and the transaction value was based on the final invoice from M/s. MMTC, not the provisional value. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of service charges in the transaction value, rejecting the argument that M/s. MMTC acted as a buying agent. 2. Assessable Value: The appellants argued that the assessable value should be based on the invoice from the foreign seller to M/s. MMTC (US $ 386 per metric tonne) and not the final invoice from M/s. MMTC to the appellants (Rs. 8098 per metric tonne). The Tribunal held that the transaction value should be based on the final invoice from M/s. MMTC, as the initial invoice was provisional. The sale was considered on a high seas basis, and the revised invoice value was accepted for assessment. 3. Service Charges: The appellants claimed that the service charges paid to M/s. MMTC should be excluded as buying commission u/s 9(1)(a)(i) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that M/s. MMTC did not act as a buying agent but as a canalising agent. The service charges were not buying commission and were rightly included in the assessable value. 4. Extended Period and Penalties (M/s. SAIL): In the case of M/s. SAIL, the Tribunal upheld the extended period for demand and penalties. The show cause notices issued to M/s. SAIL included allegations of mis-declaration and suppression of facts. M/s. SAIL did not declare the high seas sale or the final invoice value from M/s. MMTC, which was revealed during investigation. The Tribunal found that M/s. SAIL violated Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, and upheld the penalties and confiscation of goods u/s 112 and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Conclusion: All appeals were rejected, and the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming the assessable value based on M/s. MMTC's final invoice and the inclusion of service charges. The penalties and extended period for demand were also upheld in the case of M/s. SAIL.
|
