2000 (2) TMI 317 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the Final Order regarding payment of interest on the refund amount.
2. Valuation of the car for customs purposes.

Issue 1: Rectification of Mistake in Final Order Regarding Interest Payment:

The appellant submitted that the Appellate Tribunal did not pass any order regarding the payment of interest on the refund amount due to them as a result of the Tribunal's Order. They argued for interest payment based on precedents like Elephanta Oil and Vanaspati Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Swastic Metals v. U.O.I. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's error in law regarding the sale price of the car in the UK, instead of the country of manufacture (Japan), affected the interest calculation. They referenced cases like Unisef Electronics India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and C.C.E. v. Wipro Information Technology to support their argument. The appellant emphasized the Customs Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 8(2)(iii), to highlight the incorrect valuation methodology used.

In response, the Departmental Representative argued that there was no apparent mistake as the appellant did not cite the Unisef Electronics India case during the Tribunal proceedings. The Department emphasized that interest on refunds is governed by the Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and referred to Section 27A of the Customs Act, which provides for interest on delayed refunds. It clarified that the Tribunal's power to grant interest at 18% P.A. was not explicitly provided under the Customs Act. The Tribunal highlighted Section 129B, which grants the Tribunal the authority to pass suitable orders. It noted that the High Court directed interest payment in cases cited by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in not ordering interest payment to the appellant.

Issue 2: Valuation of the Car for Customs Purposes:

The appellant's argument regarding the valuation of the car centered on the Tribunal's alleged error in considering the sale price in the UK as the declared price, rather than the price in the country of manufacture (Japan). They contended that the sale price in a third country should not be equated to the FOB value in the country of manufacture, emphasizing elements like freight, marine insurance, and handling charges. The appellant cited the Unisef Electronics India Ltd. case but did not refer to it during the appeal hearing.

The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's submissions but highlighted that the appellant did not raise the Unisef Electronics India case during the appeal. It noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had provided reasoning for accepting the declared price based on the Appellate Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in the final order regarding the valuation of the car and rejected the application for rectification.

Overall, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of citing relevant precedents during proceedings and upheld the decision on both issues raised by the appellant.