Home Circulars 1990 Customs Customs - 1990 This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
Customs Valuation of goods sold on high seas - Customs - F. No. 528/207/89-Cus.Extract Customs Valuation of goods sold on high seas F. No. 528/207/89-Cus. (RH) (ICD) Dated 20-6-1990 Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Excise and Customs New Delhi Subject : Customs Valuation of goods sold on high seas I am directed to refer to the Minutes of the Conference of Collector of Customs held in Calcutta in December, 1988 and to say that the question of valuation of goods sold at high seas before their importation was again examined by the Board. It was observed that adopting the sale price at High Seas for the purpose of Valuation is perfectly within the provisions of the GATT Valuation Code. It was, accordingly decided that Board's instructions F. No.528/93/88-Cus. (TU) (ICD), dated 3-11-1988 on the subject are in order and do not require any change. 2. Consequently Board's instructions dated 16-9-1964 appearing in Vol. I Chapter-3, Part III page 197 in the Central appraising Manual issued vide Board's F. No.3/56/63-Cus. VI (copy enclosed for ready reference) may be treated as withdrawn. (Copy of Enclosure) (A) (iii) Service charges payable to State Trading Corporation The question arose whether the 'service charges' incurred by the sole agents (income cases by the State Trading Corporation of India Ltd.) should be included under the head expenses referred to in Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. The service charges payable to the State Trading Corporation are charged from Sole agents/Sole Distributors with whom the State Trading Corporation eventually place licences for import and are meant to cover expenses incurred by the State Trading Corporation in calling for quotations etc. The Board is accordingly of the view that the service charges cannot be considered to be 'expenses' incurred by the importers in their capacity as Sole Agents or by STC in similar capacity. Hence the Board agrees that the service charges in the present case cannot be included under Rule 5(a) of the Valuation Rules.
|