2008 (4) TMI 314 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake Error apparent on record CVD Held that - the C.V. duty should have been calculated on the assessable value plus customs duty and therefore Commissioner s order demanding duly needs to be rectified and the total duty payable should amount to Rs. 2, 94, 26, 135/- instead of Rs. 2, 60, 61, 129/- as indicated in at para 10(b) of the impugned order and thus there is short determination of duty to the tune of Rs. 31, 65, 006/- due to wrong manner of application of C.V. duty Error apparent on record upheld - As regards non-inclusion of freight insurance and allowing discount of 2% we hold that once the revenue has chosen to go by the invoice value recovered from importer s premises and have discarded the value indicated in the price list the invoice value has to be adopted as a whole error apparent on record rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the order regarding the valuation of consignments, incorrect computation of C.V. duty, inclusion of freight and insurance in the value of consignments, and allowance of a discount in the invoice value.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal received applications for rectification of a mistake in their order regarding the valuation of consignments. The issue arose from the observation in the order where the Tribunal mistakenly referred to 15 consignments instead of 16, leading to errors in the computation of Central Value (C.V.) duty. The Commissioner had determined the value based on different criteria for the 16th consignment, causing discrepancies in the duty calculation. The revenue pointed out errors in the computation of C.V. duty, leading to a short determination of duty amounting to Rs. 31,65,006.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the errors in their order, particularly in the incorrect computation of C.V. duty and the inclusion of freight and insurance in the consignment value. The revenue's plea regarding the computation of C.V. duty was upheld, resulting in an enhanced duty demand of Rs. 2,94,26,135 instead of Rs. 2,62,61,129. However, the plea to disallow a 2% discount in the invoice value was rejected, as the invoice value had to be accepted in its entirety once chosen by the revenue.

3. The Tribunal rectified the mistake in their order by modifying the relevant paragraphs to reflect the correct valuation criteria for the consignments. They inserted a new paragraph addressing the errors in the computation of C.V. duty and enhanced the duty demand accordingly. The Tribunal clarified that the invoice value had to be taken as inclusive of freight and insurance when chosen by the revenue, rejecting the plea to disallow the discount indicated in the invoices.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeals in totality, except for the error in the computation of C.V. duty, which led to an additional duty of Rs. 31,65,006. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly calculating C.V. duty and considering the invoice value as a whole when determining duty amounts, emphasizing the need for accuracy in valuation methods.

This detailed analysis covers the rectification of mistakes in the order, errors in C.V. duty computation, inclusion of freight and insurance in consignment value, and the allowance of discounts based on the Tribunal's judgment.