Supreme Court Invalidates Customs Valuation Rule, Deems Proviso Unlawful

The Supreme Court declared the proviso (II-i) of Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, inserted by Notification No.39/90 dated 05.07.1990, as unsustainable and bad in law. The Court held that the proviso, which mandated a fixed 1% handling charge of the F.O.B. value of goods, even when actual costs were ascertainable, was contrary to the Customs Act's provisions on determining actual transaction value. The Court found the proviso to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, leading to the judgment in favor of the appellant and setting aside the High Court's decision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of proviso (II-i) of Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.
2. Whether the proviso is ultravires Section 14(1) and Section 14(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Whether the proviso is violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Proviso (II-i) of Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988:
The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of proviso (II-i) of Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, inserted by Notification No.39/90 dated 05.07.1990. The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions and writ appeals challenging this proviso, leading to the present appeals.

2. Ultravires Section 14(1) and Section 14(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant contended that the proviso was ultravires Section 14(1) and Section 14(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Authorities added 1% of the F.O.B. value of goods as handling charges, even when actual handling charges were ascertainable. This was argued to be contrary to the provisions of Section 14, which aims to determine the actual transaction value of imported goods.

The Court examined the scheme of the Customs Act and the Valuation Rules, emphasizing that the value of imported goods should be based on the actual transaction value. Rule 9 of the Valuation Rules specifies that costs and services, including handling charges, should be added to the transaction value. However, this should be based on actual costs incurred by the buyer, as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, which mandates additions based on "objective and quantifiable data."

The Court found that the impugned proviso introduced a fiction by mandating 1% of the F.O.B. value for handling charges, even when actual costs were ascertainable. This was deemed contrary to Section 14 and the underlying principle of determining actual transaction value.

3. Violation of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:
The appellant argued that the proviso was arbitrary and irrational, violating Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business) of the Constitution. The notional fixation of handling charges at 1% of the F.O.B. value, irrespective of the nature of goods or actual costs, was claimed to be discriminatory and lacking a rational basis.

The Court agreed with this contention, stating that introducing a fictional cost for handling charges when actual costs are ascertainable is arbitrary and lacks a nexus with the objectives of Section 14. The Court held that the proviso was violative of Article 14 as it was irrational and arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeals. The impugned amendment, namely, proviso (ii) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 introduced by Notification dated 05.07.1990, was declared unsustainable and bad in law. The Court read down the proviso to mean that it would apply only when actual handling charges are not ascertainable.

---