Customs duty abatement depends on pre-clearance damage; later seller compensation does not prove excess assessable value.
Customs duty is assessed on the value of imported goods at the time of import and clearance, and abatement under Section 22 of the Customs Act is available only where damage or deterioration before or during unloading is shown to the satisfaction of customs authorities. A later settlement under which the foreign seller pays compensation for defective goods does not, by itself, prove that the invoice value was excessive for customs purposes. Where defects are discovered only after clearance and there is no contemporaneous re-examination or reassessment by customs, the compensation is treated as loss reimbursement, not evidence of lower assessable value. The claim for abatement or refund was therefore rejected.
Issues: Whether customs duty paid on the invoice value of imported goods could be refunded or abated under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the foreign seller later paid compensation for defective goods said to be of inferior quality.
Analysis: The scheme of the Customs Act, 1962 makes duty payable with reference to the assessable value at the time of import and clearance, and abatement under Section 22 is available only where it is shown to the satisfaction of the customs authorities that the goods had been damaged or deteriorated before or during unloading, or in the other situations covered by that provision. A later agreement between buyer and seller compensating the buyer for breach of warranty does not, by itself, establish that the imported goods had a lower real value at the time and place of importation. Here, the alleged defects were discovered after clearance, the customs authorities were not associated with any contemporaneous re-examination or re-assessment, and the amount received from the seller was only compensation for claimed loss, not proof that the invoice value was wrong for customs purposes.
Conclusion: The claim for abatement or refund was not maintainable, and the contention that duty had been paid on an excess value was rejected.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
