9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 770 - AT - CustomsTransaction value of goods - Adjudicating Authority has doubted on the transaction value on the ground that initially the goods were imported @ USD 938 PMT, therefore it was doubted that when the goods were imported in India @ 938 PMT the value declared by the appellants is not correct - whether the transaction value declared by the appellants is acceptable or not - Held that - goods were imported by the appellants in the month of November 2008 through a contract dated 06.11.2008 on the prevailing international market price at that time. These facts are not in dispute. Therefore, the value adopted by the Adjudicating Authority to assess the goods in question is not correct as the value of the imported goods at the time of importation by the appellant is lower than the price at which the Adjudicating Authority has relied. The transaction value will be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation. Therefore, the words used in this provision are having the importance to ascertain the transaction value. The words neither sale nor delivery are defined under the Customs Act, 1962 but the same are defined under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 - there is no doubt that there was no transfer of possession from the shipper to the earlier consignee to arrive at the decision that goods were delivered. As the documents of title were returned back by the earlier importer to the supplier accepted and unpaid, the agreement to sale could not become sale as per Section 4(4) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Therefore, the said price was neither paid nor payable. In these circumstances, the said price cannot be said to be the price of the goods in question. As per Rule 10(1 )( e) of the Valuation Rules, 2007, the amount which paid over and above the invoice price is required to be added to assessment. As discussed above also, the transaction value is the price actually paid or payable to the supplier. In this case, the transaction value is the price paid by the appellant to the supplier plus the demurrage charges till 06.11.2008 paid by the appellant on behalf of the supplier for importation of the goods in question. Therefore, the transaction value in this case is invoice price plus demurrage charges accumulated till 06.11.2008 i.e. date of contract. It is very much clear that the value is to be the transaction value which is paid or payable for import of goods in India when sold for delivery at the time and place of importation. Therefore, sale, time of delivery and place of importation are necessary ingredients to determine the value of the goods. All the three ingredients have to be read in conjunction. There must be a sale for delivery at the time and place of importation and contemporaneous prices of the time cannot be ignored. In this case, the time of entering into contract by the appellants with their foreign supplier is very much relevant to determine the transaction value of the goods. Therefore, as the invoice price at the relevant time has not been disputed by the revenue that same is not correct as per prevailing market price during that time, the transaction value cannot be rejected. Appellant approached to the Settlement Commission for settling the issue and Settlement Commission held that the real assessable value shall be the invoice price plus demurrage charges accumulated on the goods till 06.11.2009. But the revenue is of the view that, such demurrage charges are not includable in the assessable value. Although, the revenue does not want to include demurrage charges in the transaction value, but as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the correct assessable value is invoice Price plus demurrage charges accumulated till 06.11.2008. Therefore, we hold that the correct assessable value is invoice Price plus demurrage charges accumulated till 06.11.2008. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of transaction value of imported goods. 2. Determination of correct transaction value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Applicability of Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. 4. Relevance of contemporaneous import prices. 5. Inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Transaction Value of Imported Goods: The appellants/importers challenged the rejection of their declared transaction value by the lower authorities. The assessing authority objected to the declared price of USD 442 PMT to USD 445 PMT, comparing it to an earlier import price of USD 938 PMT. The matter was referred to SIIB (Import), which found the declared value to be very low. The Settlement Commission initially ordered a refund of excess duty but was overruled by the High Court, leading to the final assessment at USD 938 PMT. 2. Determination of Correct Transaction Value Under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962: The primary issue was to determine the correct transaction value for assessment under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that the transaction value should be the price actually paid as per the contract dated 06.11.2008, which was USD 442 PMT or USD 445 PMT. They contended that the original price of USD 938 PMT was not a fructified sale and did not lead to delivery into India. 3. Applicability of Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007: Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, was crucial in this case. The appellants argued that the transaction value should include demurrage charges paid as a condition of sale. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the transaction value is the price paid to the supplier plus demurrage charges till the date of the contract (06.11.2008). 4. Relevance of Contemporaneous Import Prices: The lower authorities relied on contemporaneous import prices to reject the declared value. However, the Tribunal noted that the goods were imported in November 2008 at a time when international market prices had dropped. The Tribunal found that the value adopted by the adjudicating authority was not correct as it did not reflect the prevailing market price at the time of the appellants' import. 5. Inclusion of Demurrage Charges in the Assessable Value: The Tribunal emphasized that demurrage charges incurred till the date of the contract should be included in the transaction value. This was supported by Rule 10(1)(e) and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Garden Silk Mills Ltd. and Rai Metal Works Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the correct assessable value is the invoice price plus demurrage charges accumulated till 06.11.2008. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. It held that the correct transaction value for assessment is the invoice price plus demurrage charges till 06.11.2008, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The decision was pronounced in court on 18.07.2014.
|
