2000 (11) TMI 554 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Assessable value determination based on the price of goods, application of rate of exchange and duty, interpretation of Section 46 of the Act.

Assessable Value Determination:
The case involved the import of goods by two different entities, where the first importer did not proceed with clearance, and the goods were re-sold to the second importer. The issue revolved around whether the assessable value should be based on the price at which the goods were sold to the second importer or the first importer. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessable value should be based on the price at which the goods were first invoiced to the initial importer, which was not challenged by either party. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention that the rate of exchange and duty should be based on the date when the bills of entry were filed by the initial importer. This decision was challenged by the Commissioner.

Application of Rate of Exchange and Duty:
The argument presented was that the rate of exchange and duty should be based on the date when the bills of entry were filed by the initial importer, as per the provisions of Section 14 and Section 15. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this argument, but it was challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that the rate of exchange and duty should be determined based on the date when the second importer filed the bills of entry, as the second importer became the actual importer after the manifest was amended to reflect the change in importer details.

Interpretation of Section 46 of the Act:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of understanding Section 46 of the Act, which requires a bill of entry for home consumption to be presented by the importer of goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer is defined as the entity holding itself out to be the importer, which in this case shifted from the initial importer to the second importer after the manifest was amended. Therefore, the rate of exchange and duty applicable should align with the date when the second importer presented the bills of entry, not the initial importer.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring those of the Assistant Commissioner. The decision clarified the correct application of the rate of exchange and duty based on the actual importer at the time of filing the bills of entry, emphasizing compliance with the law over past practices in the Custom House.