Assessable value excludes post-clearing bank charges, and an unsupported penalty cannot be sustained.

Post-clearing bank charges were treated as deductible post-clearing expenses and, therefore, not includible in the assessable value for duty; the duty demand on that component was not sustainable because a binding Supreme Court ruling displaced the earlier contrary appellate view. The penalty was also unsustainable because it was imposed without recorded reasons, and it was set aside. The note further records that the dispute concerning damaged goods was not pursued.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether bank charges could be deducted from the assessable value of the goods; and (ii) whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether bank charges could be deducted from the assessable value of the goods.

Analysis: Bank charges were treated as post-clearing expenses. Such expenses do not form part of the assessable value and are deductible from the value on which duty is charged. The prior appellate order refusing the deduction could not stand in view of the binding Supreme Court ruling referred to in the judgment.

Conclusion: The deduction of bank charges was admissible and the demand of duty on that component was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty was not supported by recorded reasons. In the circumstances noted in the judgment, the penalty could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted on the bank charges component and the penalty was annulled, while the dispute regarding damaged goods was not pursued.

Ratio Decidendi: Post-clearing expenses are not includible in assessable value, and a penalty imposed without supporting reasons cannot be sustained.

---