9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 474 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - edible oil - inclusion of value of barge charges incurred by them between the anchorage port and the port of unloading - HELD THAT - A harmonious reading of the amendment carried out to Rule 10 would clarify that during the period under dispute i.e. August 1996 to March 2001, the Department had no provision to get the barge charges included in the total value for payment of Customs Duty - Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed along with consequential relief, if any. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD 2013 (10) TMI 246 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD has gone into the aspect as to whether the amendment carried out has retrospective effect or not and has held that Personal penalty imposed on the Senior Executive - HELD THAT - Since the basic issue is held in favour of the Appellant and their Appeals have been allowed, the Appeal filed by the third Appellant is allowed by setting aside the personal penalty imposed to him.
Issues:
The judgment involves the valuation of imported goods, specifically whether barge charges should be included in the total value for the purpose of Customs Duty during the period August 1996 to March 2001. Additionally, it addresses the personal penalty imposed on a Senior Executive. Valuation of Imported Goods: The Appellant imported edible oil and faced a Show Cause Notice for not including barge charges in the valuation while filing Bill of Entries. The Department confirmed Customs Duty, leading to an Appeal before the Tribunal. The Appellant was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 15 lakhs for the Appeal, which they failed to do initially. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal due to non-compliance, but it was later restored after obtaining a Stay Order from the High Court. The Tribunal proceeded with the Appeal after the pre-deposit was made. The Appellant argued that an amendment to Rule 10 of Customs Valuation Rules in 2007 required adding barge charges, but they relied on a Supreme Court judgment stating otherwise. The Tribunal found that during the disputed period, the Department had no provision to include barge charges in the total value, thus allowing the Appeal. Legal Precedents and Interpretations: The Appellant cited the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai and Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CC, Jam Nagar to support their argument that the amendment in 2007 should not apply retrospectively to their imports from 1996 to 2001. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ispat Industries case, emphasizing that charges for transporting goods by barges cannot be included in the valuation. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the interpretation of the term "imported" and the applicability of the amendment in Rule 10, noting that the provisions were not applicable retrospectively. These legal interpretations guided the Tribunal's decision to allow the Appeal. Personal Penalty Imposition: Apart from the valuation issue, a personal penalty was imposed on a Senior Executive. As the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant regarding the valuation matter, the penalty imposed on the Senior Executive was also set aside. All Appeals were allowed based on the findings related to the valuation of imported goods.
|
