9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Consideration of goods imported under a forward contract for valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Customs (Valuation) Rules. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of goods imported under a forward contract. The key issue was whether the price paid for the goods under an amended basis should be considered the true transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs (Valuation) Rules. The respondent had entered into a contract for the supply of Copper Anodes, with the price based on the LME grade Copper cash settlement price average over a specified period. The contract terms required a provisional invoice at the LME on the date of Bill of Lading and final adjustments through a final invoice as per the contract quotation period. The dispute arose when the department insisted on a final invoice before the contracted date, leading to a re-negotiation of terms. The original authority determined the assessable value based on the provisional invoice plus a discount, while the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the forward contract price reflected the correct Customs value, as it was a normal international trade practice. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the forward contract price did not meet the essential conditions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that the terms of the contract were manipulated to suit convenience. The Revenue further contended that the final invoice price was lower than the prevailing market price, and the reduction in discount was justified based on the nature of the imported goods. The Tribunal considered various aspects, including the re-negotiation of the contract due to the Custom House's refusal to accept the forward contract, the absence of evidence of additional payments to the seller, and the certification of final remittance matching the invoiced amount. The Tribunal also noted the Revenue's acceptance of forward contracts as a feature of international trade in metals. It found that the re-negotiation was a result of the Custom House's demands, and there was no evidence of fraud or breach of contract. Additionally, the reasons provided by the original authority for reducing the discount were deemed inadequate, as the contract was for copper anodes, not scrap. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that the transaction value under the contract did not warrant rejection under the Customs Valuation Rules, as no conditions were met, and no evidence of fraud or special understanding was presented. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the valuation based on the terms of the forward contract.
|
