1993 (4) TMI 184 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Repeated filing of applications for rectification of mistakes (ROM) under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Valuation of imported goods, specifically the Toyota Corona 1600 DLX Sedan.
3. The applicability of a 15% trade discount on the manufacturer's invoice.
4. Inclusion of freight, insurance, and landing charges in the valuation.
5. Whether the ROM application constitutes a review of the Tribunal's final order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Repeated Filing of ROM Applications:
The appellants repeatedly filed ROM applications following the Tribunal's order dated 15-1-1985, which dismissed their appeals. The Tribunal had dismissed the ROM applications, citing that the appellants were attempting to review the order under the guise of rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that its power under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, did not extend to reviewing its own orders.

2. Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported a Toyota Corona 1600 DLX Sedan and presented the manufacturer's invoice at the time of assessment. The valuation was done by adding freight and insurance to the FOB value stated in the invoice. The appellants challenged this valuation, claiming a 15% discount should have been applied to the manufacturer's invoice, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector and subsequently upheld by the Collector and the Tribunal.

3. Applicability of a 15% Trade Discount:
The appellants argued that a 15% trade discount should be allowed from the catalogue price, citing a later decision in the case of Prem Kumar v. Collector of Customs, which supported their claim. However, the Tribunal maintained that the manufacturer's invoice did not indicate any discount, and thus, reliance on the invoice was appropriate. The Tribunal rejected the plea for revising the value of the car based on catalogue prices or other documents.

4. Inclusion of Freight, Insurance, and Landing Charges:
The appellants contended that freight and landing charges should not be included in the valuation as the car was personal baggage. They cited sections 12 and 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal, however, upheld the inclusion of these charges, stating that the valuation should be assessed in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act.

5. ROM Application as a Review:
The Tribunal emphasized that the ROM application was essentially an attempt to review the final order passed on 15-1-1985. It held that the Tribunal's power under Section 129B(2) did not include reviewing its own orders or adopting a different interpretation. The Tribunal cited several judgments to support this view, including the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd., which stated that a Tribunal's decision could only be modified by the Supreme Court.

Separate Judgments:

President's Judgment:
The President held that the ROM application was an attempt to review the Tribunal's final order and was not maintainable. He emphasized that the Tribunal's power did not extend to reviewing its own orders and that the appropriate remedy was to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Member (Technical) P.C. Jain's Judgment:
Member (Technical) P.C. Jain disagreed with the President, arguing that the appellant's plea was based on the department's circular, which had not been considered by the Tribunal in its final order. He held that the appellant was entitled to a 15% trade discount based on the department's circular and the Tribunal's observations in Prem Kumar's case. He directed the authorities to reassess the duty accordingly.

Majority Decision:
Member (Technical) K.S. Venkataramani concurred with the President's view, stating that the ROM application was an attempt to review the final order on merits. He emphasized that the Tribunal had given a considered finding on the assessable value and that applying the ratio of a subsequent decision would amount to a review, which was not permissible.

Final Order:
In view of the majority decision, the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed.