2006 (8) TMI 407 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exchange rate for ex-bond Bills of Entry.
2. Retrospective effect of corrigendum to Public Notice.
3. Valuation of goods for customs duty purposes.
4. Competency of Commissioner to issue public notice contrary to law.
5. Duty payment as per statutory provisions.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the exchange rate applicable for ex-bond Bills of Entry. The Commissioner had initially issued a Public Notice specifying the exchange rate as on the ex-bond Bill of Entry date. However, a corrigendum was later issued aligning the rate with the date of Warehousing Bills of Entry, in accordance with the law.

2. The issue of retrospective effect of the corrigendum to the Public Notice was raised by the appellant. They argued that they had paid duty correctly based on the original Public Notice and challenged the demand for payment following the corrigendum. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, leading to the appeal.

3. The valuation of goods for customs duty assessment was crucial in this case. The Customs Act, 1962, under Section 14, mandates the valuation of goods based on the price at which similar goods are sold in international trade, considering the rate of exchange prevailing on the date of Bill of Entry presentation. The appellant had erred in following the incorrect valuation as per the Public Notice.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the competency of the Commissioner to issue a public notice deviating from the statutory provisions. It was established that the Commissioner cannot issue notices contrary to the law. The appellants' awareness of the duty due did not absolve them from following the correct valuation procedure.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was required to pay duty as per the statutory provisions, irrespective of the system challenges faced during Bill of Entry filing. The duty was rightly demanded based on the correct valuation procedure, and the lower appellate authority's decision to sustain the demand was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.