TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CEGAT Appellate Tribunal: Duty demand set aside for Water Extrusion Plant import under EPCG Scheme</h1> <h3>RD. EXTRUSIONS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI</h3> RD. EXTRUSIONS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2003 (153) E.L.T. 710 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Dispute over the valuation of imported Water Extrusion Plant under EPCG Scheme.2. Inclusion of subsequent imports in valuation.3. Addition of landing charges in the valuation.4. Justification of duty demand.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi concerned the dispute arising from the import of a second-hand Water Extrusion Plant under the EPCG Scheme. The Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, dated 9-4-2002, demanded duty of Rs. 2,71,022, alleging that the value of the imported plant exceeded the permitted value under the EPCG License. The appellant contended that the valuation in the impugned order was erroneous. Firstly, the appellant argued that subsequent imports should not have been considered in the valuation as they were not part of the adjudication proceedings. Additionally, the appellant objected to the addition of 1% towards landing charges, asserting that such charges were already included in the free delivery price agreed with the foreign supplier.The learned DR argued in favor of including subsequent imports and landing charges in the valuation, stating that they were justified under Customs law. The Tribunal's remand order had specifically focused on the import of the Hydraulic Press, excluding subsequent imports of batteries from the proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that subsequent imports should not have been part of the valuation process and that landing charges were already accounted for in the declared value. The Tribunal highlighted that if the valuation had been conducted according to the remand order, the import value would have been within the EPCG License limits. Any issues related to the subsequent import of batteries should have been addressed separately through a notice.Consequently, the Tribunal found the duty demand unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific scope of adjudication proceedings and ensuring accurate valuation based on the terms of the transaction.
TaxTMI 