2006 (4) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of value for charging duty in respect of DTA clearances u/s 14 of Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 3 of Customs Valuation Rules.

Summary:
1. The case involved a 100% E.O.U. engaged in manufacturing phthalic anhydride seeking clearance into Domestic Tariff Area based on imported consignment prices. Customs department fixed the value for duty payment, but show cause notices questioned using local invoice value. Assistant Commissioner upheld duty payment based on import prices, which was affirmed by Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The S.D.R. argued that the price should be determined as per Rule 3 of Customs Valuation Rules, considering local market invoice value as transaction price. CEGAT precedent emphasized Rule 8 for determining Assessable Value based on prevailing domestic market prices.

3. The Tribunal noted that excisable goods from a 100% E.O.U. are subject to duty based on customs laws. The value must align with prices of like goods imported into India, not domestic market prices. CESTAT precedent clarified that domestic sale price does not equate to international trade price u/s 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Value computation should include expenses, profit, duty, and taxes, with import price of identical goods serving as a benchmark.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

*(Pronounced in Court on 21-4-2006)*