Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported stainless steel coils were liable to be classified as sheets or plates for customs duty purposes on the basis of their thickness, and whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of the excess duty paid under protest.
Analysis: The assessment made by the customs authorities was found to be unsustainable because the thickness had been measured only at the edges of the coils and the request to unwind the coils for proper measurement was declined on grounds of inconvenience. The method adopted by the Assistant Collector, namely averaging the figures of the Docks Shed Appraiser and the Laboratory, was held to be erroneous. The guidelines relied upon contemplated uniform measurement, and on the facts the petitioners' contention that the material was of plate thickness was accepted. Since a thickness of 3.175 mm. would take the goods out of the higher duty treatment applied to sheets, the assessment at 200% ad valorem could not stand.
Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to refund of the excess customs duty, and the impugned orders refusing refund were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where customs classification depends on thickness, the authorities must adopt a proper and uniform method of measurement and cannot sustain assessment on an incomplete or erroneous sampling method; an assessment based on faulty measurement is liable to be set aside and consequential refund granted.