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>Ship breaking company wins appeal on CIF value declaration, expenses responsibility clarified</h1> <h3>PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., JAMNAGAR</h3> PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., JAMNAGAR - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 561 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Customs Valuation Rules regarding the division of costs for beaching and inclusion of tug charges in the assessment value.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by a company engaged in ship breaking against an Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner of Customs. The main issue revolved around the reference to the division of cost for beaching and whether tug charges should be included for assessment beyond the contract price. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered re-assessment of the Bill of Entry by considering the actual cost after verification.The appellants argued that the CIF value declared in the Bill of Entry represented the transaction value under Rule 3 and was supported by a clear agreement with the seller. They contended that the expenses for local tugs and beaching were the seller's responsibility, as per the agreement terms. The appellants emphasized that the expenses incurred post-importation could not be considered transportation charges and should not be added to the assessable value.Upon examining the MOA and relevant clauses, the Tribunal noted that the responsibility for beaching the vessel lay with the seller, and all related costs were to be borne by the seller. The contract price was inclusive of all costs for delivery at the place of importation, as per the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal highlighted that charges incurred after the import order could not be added to the value under Section 14.Considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal should be allowed. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was granted in favor of the appellants.In summary, the judgment delved into the interpretation of Customs Valuation Rules concerning the allocation of costs for beaching and the inclusion of tug charges in the assessment value. The decision emphasized the contractual obligations, the responsibility for expenses, and the principles governing the determination of assessable value post-importation.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
