Import licence expiry and indenting commission inclusion sustained in confiscation, penalty, and valuation dispute.

Goods shipped after the expiry of the import licences were not covered by those licences; the admitted antedating of the bill of lading and the surrounding correspondence showed the importer knew shipment had not occurred in time, so confiscation and penalty were upheld. Indenting commission paid through the agency that placed the orders was includible in the assessable value because the importer and the private limited company were separate legal entities; the absence of a separate notice to the indenting company did not alter valuation. The assessment and penal action were sustained on both issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and the importer was liable to penalty because the bill of lading had been antedated and the consignments were shipped after expiry of the import licences; (ii) Whether the indenting commission was includible in the assessable value of the imported goods.

Issue (i): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and the importer was liable to penalty because the bill of lading had been antedated and the consignments were shipped after expiry of the import licences.

Analysis: The admitted position was that the bill of lading was antedated and the goods were in fact received for shipment after the date on which the relevant licences had expired. Once the shipment had taken place after expiry of the licences, the import was not covered by the licences. The correspondence on record also supported the conclusion that the importer was aware that shipment had not taken place by the expiry date.

Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation and penalty was rightly imposed on the importer.

Issue (ii): Whether the indenting commission was includible in the assessable value of the imported goods.

Analysis: The commission was paid to the indenting agency through which the orders were placed. The plea that no service charges were incurred because the related company formed the same concern as the importer was rejected, since the importer and the private limited company had distinct legal identities. The absence of a separate notice to the indenting company did not affect includibility of the commission in the value of the goods.

Conclusion: The indenting commission was includible in the assessable value and the related penalty was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both the liability to confiscation and the valuation issue, and the Revenue's assessment and penal action were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods shipped after the expiry of the import licence are liable to confiscation, and commission paid to a legally distinct indenting agent forms part of the assessable value where it is attributable to the import transaction.

---