Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 16 - AT - CustomsFailure to obtain import-export code - Validity of import for not being in possession of import export code - Valuation of imported goods - ceramic tiles and sanitary ware - enhancement of value based on contemporaneous imports - Levy of additional duty - Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Differential duty demand - Held that:- The appellant had procured the goods for personal use and for transacting in personal goods, the Foreign Trade Policy permits a generic code to be employed. Accordingly, there being no bar on imports of personal effects against bill of entry and without separate code, there is no flaw in the procedure for import. Determination of value for the purpose of additional duty - enhancement of value - Rule 6 of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 - Held that:- It is surprising that rules pertaining to section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, which deals with goods manufactured in the country have been invoked in relation to imports without such rules being acknowledged either in the Customs Act, 1962 or the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Additional duty of customs is a specific levy authorised by section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The taxing provision is self contained and makes reference, for determination of value, to section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. There is, therefore, no scope for insinuation of any rules that does not claim parentage from either of these two statutes or, at least, by adoption in either of these - the determination of value for the purpose of additional duty is without basis in law and is not tenable - the enhancement of value for ascertainment of customs duty both basic and additional, fails to meet the test of legality. For want of information of contemporaneous imports, rule 9 of the rules has been resorted to enhance the value of 'sanitary ware', in proportion to that adopted for 'tiles'. This is neither justifiable nor logical; the procedure in law does not permit application of an enhancement in one set of articles to be adopted for another. No attempt appears to have been made to follow the letter and spirit of rule 9 of the said rules. The enhancement of value in the imports effected in the impugned order is without sanction of law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|