1980 (2) TMI 98 - HC - Customs

Court overturns Customs' refund denial, rules for Company. Reasons deemed unsound. Refund granted under Customs Act.

CADBURY FRY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA

CADBURY FRY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1990 (46) E.L.T. 7 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Determination of the real value of cocoa beans for Customs duty purposes.2. Relationship between the petitioner-Company and the U.K. Company.3. Validity of the refund of excess Customs duty paid by the petitioner-Company.4. Compliance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of the Real Value of Cocoa Beans for Customs Duty Purposes:The petitioner-Company, a private limited company, imported cocoa beans from the U.K. and Malaysia. The U.K. Company purchased cocoa beans on behalf of the petitioner-Company and shipped them as per the petitioner-Company's instructions. The Customs authorities assessed the value of these consignments at a higher rate than the invoiced value, leading to the demand for additional differential duty, which the petitioner-Company paid under protest. The petitioner-Company subsequently applied for a refund of the excess duty paid, which was initially granted but later challenged by the Collector of Customs.2. Relationship Between the Petitioner-Company and the U.K. Company:The Collector of Customs based his impugned order on the assertion that the petitioner-Company and the U.K. Company were related persons, implying that the transactions between them were not at arm's length. The Court found this reasoning factually incorrect, noting that the U.K. Company acted merely as an agent for the petitioner-Company and not as a principal. The contracts and communications between the petitioner-Company and the U.K. Company clearly indicated an agency relationship, with the U.K. Company charging a commission for its services.3. Validity of the Refund of Excess Customs Duty Paid by the Petitioner-Company:The Collector of Customs issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner-Company, stating that the refunds had been improperly sanctioned. The petitioner-Company was not provided with the decision of the Collector of Customs that was referenced in the show-cause notice. After a personal hearing, the Collector passed an order demanding the repayment of the refunded amounts. The Court found that the reasons given by the Collector for denying the refund were irrational and unrelated to the requirements of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Compliance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962:Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides for the valuation of goods for Customs duty purposes, stating that the value shall be the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold in the course of international trade, where the seller and buyer have no interest in each other's business and the price is the sole consideration. The Court found that the Collector's reasons for rejecting the invoiced value did not align with the requirements of Section 14. The Court held that the transactions were genuine and conducted in the course of international trade, with the prices being the sole consideration for the sale.Conclusion:The Court set aside the impugned order of the Collector of Customs, ruling in favor of the petitioner-Company. The Court found that the reasons given by the Collector for denying the refund were unsound and not in compliance with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court made the rule absolute, with no order as to costs.