9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs 809 and 810 covered the importation. As per these contracts, the value was fixed at Japanese Yen 98,870.00 per MT. This price was made up of f.o.b. rate of JY 88,000 per m.t. plus firm freight rate of JY 10,870 per m.t. The customs authorities assessed the goods @ JY 1,01,060 per metric tonne. 3. The Food Corporation of India preferred a refund claim on 4-7-1979 on the grounds that excess value was adopted instead of actual value as per invoice and excess departmental charges were taken instead of actuals. The Assistant Collector called for the relevant contracts but the appellants did not produce the same and consequently the refund claim was rejected as unsubstantiated. In the appeal, the Appellate Collector held that for assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontract is correct and no charges should be added on account of insurance when the goods were not insured. 5. Arguing on behalf of the Department, the learned Representative, Shri Ramanathan, submitted that in terms of Section 14, the action of the Customs in adding insurance charges notionally was correct. His argument was that insurance of goods in international trade is done almost in every case and as such insurance costs form part of the assessable value. Therefore, the learned representative submitted that even if actual insurance is not done the conceptual value would include a charge on account of insurance. Referring to the reliance on cited orders of the Board, the learned Representative submitted that such orders are not bindi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be any conceptual value as argued by the learned SDR. It is not denied that in this case, no insurance was done. The Government of India had a monopoly in the importation of fertiliser at the relevant time and, therefore, the question of like goods being sold or offered for sale by others did not arise. In the circumstances, without entering into a discussion on the validity of the administrative instructions of the Central Board of Excise Customs, we hold that insurance charges cannot be added to the invoice value for purposes of assessment of Customs duty. 8. We further notice from a perusal of the revision application and the Order-in-Appeal that at the time of the refund claim the appellants showed the C F value as JY 1,00,900. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
