9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was allowed to be cleared without payment of duty in terms of exemption Notification No. 3/89-Cus., dated 9-1-1989, on the appellants giving requisite undertakings backed by bank guarantees, promising to re-export, the goods within six months of the date of import. On the party s request the date by which the goods were to be re-exported was extended more than once, but as the importer had not re-exported the goods even upto March, 1994 the bank guarantees of Rs. 6,37,00,520/- furnished in terms of the undertakings were encashed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs on 29-3-1994. 2. The appellants filed a letter with the Collector of Customs on 8th April, 1994 requesting for finalisation of duty assessment in respect of the goods that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducting Customs duty and other expenses from the said price of Rs. 4,673 per line. The impugned assessment order dated 22nd June, 1996 rejecting the appellants request for reassessment, was passed in the aforesaid context. 2. The appellants had submitted that the goods were imported as a Validation Exchange and had been installed at Ahmedabad. The goods were cleared at the time of import against a proforma invoice and sale took place only after the exchange was accepted by the DOT and price approved was Rs. 4673 per line at site. The appellants submission has been that the price indicated in the proforma invoice was only quoted price and not a transaction value. The transaction value emerged only after validation and purchase by DOT. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices had been declared as true declared value for customs purposes ; the subsequent value of Rs. 4,673/- per line was fixed by a third party (DOT) and cannot be taken as a basis to revise the transaction value which was originally accepted. The impugned order has confirmed the order in adjudication holding that since the goods had been cleared for home consumption at the time of import and they had been assessed to duty there was no merit in the appellants submissions. The Commissioner also rejected the contention that the value adopted at the time of import cannot be the correct basis as it was not a sale price, holding that sale is not a precondition for determination of assessable value and goods have to be assessed for duty even in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and also stipulated that, in case, goods so imported were not exported, they may be entered for domestic consumption on payment of duty. The appellants contention is that in the case of a demonstration/validation equipment, there is no sale of the goods at the time of their import. Therefore, there is no transaction value also. Further, the price indicated in the proforma invoice was based on Tender Selling Prices Quoted. Such a quotation price could not be taken as sale price at the time and place of import. In the absence of such a price, the Customs Authorities should have at least assessed the goods based on comparable value of identical or similar goods. That has also not been attempted by them. Neither the adjudication order, nor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal the position. (The enquiry can be accompanied by a demand for Bank draft, Bank memo, etc. when necessary). Such enquiry should frequently be made when the information regarding the method of payment is not given in the invoice unless the real value declared in the bill of entry is clearly acceptable on other grounds e.g. by comparison with other importations of the same goods. When detected, such cases should be brought to the notice of the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement for discussion, as to the best way to deal with the assessment, in terms of the provisions of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. 5. The response of the Customs Authorities to these submissions is that the sale price to DOT is much after import of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods and refunding the excess duty collected as Section 27 of the Customs Act relating to refunds does not bar refund of excess duty paid if the assessment was final or that the goods had been entered under a Bill of Entry for home consumption under Section 46 or 47. Such a stand is contrary to the view taken in the adjudication order also as it has been held in that order that Sales Bills of Entry filed in terms of Notification 3/89-Cus. are required to be assessed, rather than treating the assessment made at the time of import as irrevocable. Such a view is contrary to the Specific provision of Notification 3/89 also as that Notification provides that, if the goods imported for demonstration are not exported, they may be entered for dom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
