New Customs Cases

1

Customs - 2008 - TMI - 3910 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MUMBAI

Refund claim of Rs.7,11,279/- for the interest paid on warehousing u/s 61 - held that the provisions of Section 27(which deals with the refund of duty and the interest paid on such duty) will not apply to impugned refund claim - Circular.475/39/90 has also clarified that warehousing interest is distinguishable from Customs duty - burden of interest paid on warehousing could not have been passed on to the customer as the same is paid at the time of clearance of the goods - refund admissible

2

Customs - 2008 - TMI - 3908 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION CHENNAI

Polyster Fabrics imported in this case are nothing but fabrics(notified goods u/not. 204 issued u/s 123(2) - On basis of chemical reports Revenue holds that the goods don't tally with the particulars contained in the B/E on which the said goods had been admittedly got cleared - if goods have been seized under the provisions of the Act on the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, settlement application is not maintainable by virtue of third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 127B

3

Customs - 2008 - TMI - 3907 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

Based on the DRI letter, the Customs authorities rejected the declared value u/r 10A, Custom Valuation Rules & enhanced the value of the goods - decision of the Commissioner of accepting enhanced value is arbitrary - law mandated that, where the declared value was not acceptable, the correct value should be determined through a systematic process involving sequential application of the CVR - impugned order of confiscation & penalty is set aside and this appeal is allowed

4

Customs - 2008 - TMI - 3902 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

Motor and electrical items imported under a Technical Collaboration Agreement between the importer and the German co. - technical information in the form of documentation was also transferred by the German co. to the importer - technical information/assistance fee, trade mark fee paid by assessee to foreign collaborator are not includible in transaction value u/r 9(1)(c) and Rule 9(1)(d) resp. because there was no pre-condition of transfer of technical assistance for sale of goods

5

Customs - 2008 - TMI - 3900 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

Import of Super Kerosene Oil & LPG - In IOC case Tribunal held that demurrage is not includable in the assessable value which was upheld by SC - amendment by circular dated Sept. 26, 2006 can't be given retrospective effect - once there is a CIF contract which includes the freight, no further addition can be made to the freight - demurrage can't be considered as cost of transportation - for the relevant period (Oct. 99 to Nov. 2004) we cannot hold demurrage would be includable in AV