1996 (5) TMI 274 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of license conditions and their impact on assessable value.
2. Application of Customs Valuation Rules in determining assessable value.
3. Relevance of High Court order in the context of assessable value.
4. Validity of refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Consideration of comparable values in determining assessable value.

Analysis:
1. The appellant entered into an agreement with a Malaysian supplier for Dried Copra supply at US $ 570 PMT C & F. The High Court directed the issuance of a license with conditions, including no amendment in price terms. Import was made at US $ 200 PMT CIF, leading to a refund claim based on international trade prices. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) rejected the claim, citing lack of evidence on comparable values and no objection raised during assessment.

2. The absence of the High Court order copy hindered the investigation into the pricing discrepancy. If the appellant paid less than the contract price, it would violate the license condition. The Collector (Appeals) erred in linking assessable value to the High Court order rather than Customs Valuation Rules. The High Court order was specific to license issuance and did not impact assessable value determination.

3. The appellant's payment at US $ 570 PMT CIF, despite lower ruling prices, necessitates scrutiny. Failure to provide evidence of comparable imports led to reliance on Customs Valuation Rules. Section 14 of the Customs Act applies to duty collection based on ordinary price in international trade, requiring investigation into prevailing prices.

4. The objection raised on no timely objection during assessment is irrelevant for refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Collector (Appeals) misapplied the law by deeming Section 14 inapplicable, contrary to legal provisions.

5. The Tribunal set aside the previous order, remanding the case for reassessment of refund claims by the Jurisdictional Commissioner. The decision allows the appeals, emphasizing compliance with legal requirements and proper assessment based on observations in the order.