Customs duty assessment guidelines clarified by High Court

The High Court clarified that standing orders in customs duty assessment are guidelines, not mandates, intended to streamline customs officers' functions. The use of foreign journals for valuation of imported goods is permissible if transaction value is rejected, with Customs Valuation Rules and contemporaneous imports as primary references. The Assessing Authority must justify any deviation from transaction value. The court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner the chance to provide evidence for valuation and seek redress if needed, aligning with the Supreme Court's directives.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of standing orders in customs duty assessment, reliance on foreign journals for valuation of imported goods.

In the judgment, the High Court addressed the issue of standing orders in customs duty assessment in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Varsha Plastics Private Limited v. Union of India. The Supreme Court clarified that standing orders are meant to assist in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers for determining the value for customs duty levy, but they are not binding. The High Court agreed with this view, emphasizing that standing orders are guidelines, not mandates, and are intended to streamline the functioning of customs officers without interfering with their discretion. The Department confirmed that the impugned standing order is non-binding and serves to bring about uniformity in assessment work. Therefore, the standing order should be understood as guidance rather than a directive.

Regarding the use of foreign journals for valuation of imported goods, the Supreme Court highlighted that if the transaction value is rejected, customs authorities must determine the value based on Customs Valuation Rules and contemporaneous imports. However, in the absence of evidence of contemporaneous imports, reference to foreign journals indicating international prices may be relevant. The Assessing Authority must justify any rejection of transaction value and follow Customs Valuation Rules for determining the value of goods. The judgment emphasized that the correct international price for imported goods should be established based on the facts of each case, with the Assessing Authority having the responsibility to determine the value at which the goods are sold in international trade at the time of importation.

In conclusion, the High Court applied the Supreme Court's observations to the present case and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to present evidence before the Assessing Authority to support the valuation in the Bill of Entry. If dissatisfied with the Assessing Authority's decision, the petitioner could seek redress in accordance with the law.

---