2005 (9) TMI 84 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court clarifies inclusion of transportation costs in imported goods value under Customs Act, 1962.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD Versus ESSAR STEEL LTD.

The Supreme Court resolved the dispute concerning the inclusion of transportation costs in the value of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The ... Valuation (Customs) - Transportation cost - Held that:- respondents may be correct in their submission that they had given a firm basis for the cost of transportation and that the Customs Authorities themselves had not been able to adduce any contrary evidence on the basis of which they could impugn the rate disclosed. Be that as it may, we note that at the time of the hearing before the Commissioner, Counsel for the respondent No. 1 did put forward an alternative submission to the effect that since in all the cases of import the freight was not readily ascertainable the same could be determined on the basis of 20% of the FOB value and he expressed his readiness to pay the duty so calculated. Before us, the appellants submit through the learned Additional Solicitor General that, they are willing to accept this offer - In the circumstances and without disturbing the other findings of the Tribunal relating to the quashing of the Penalty and interest and to the Brazil imports, we dispose of these appeals by directing the respondent No. 1 to pay the cost of transportation in respect of the Bahrain imports at 20% of the FOB value. It is being made clear that this direction will not be the basis of any penalty or interest to be levied against respondent No. 1 or any of their officers - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:1. Inclusion of cost of transportation in the value of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962.2. Dispute regarding the determination of cost of transportation for Iron Ore Pellets imported from Brazil and Bahrain.3. Applicability of Customs Valuation Rules in determining transportation costs.4. Tribunal's decision on the demand for increased transportation cost.5. Challenge to Tribunal's decision by Customs authorities.6. Legal interpretation of cost of transportation in relation to Time Charter.7. Resolution of the dispute and final directions given by the Supreme Court.Issue 1:The main issue in this case revolved around the inclusion of the cost of transportation in the value of imported goods as per Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.Issue 2:The dispute arose concerning the determination of the cost of transportation for Iron Ore Pellets imported from Brazil and Bahrain between March 1990 and September 1991.Issue 3:The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision was based on the applicability of the Customs Valuation Rules in determining the transportation costs, considering the provisions of Rule 9 sub-rule (2) proviso (i).Issue 4:The Customs authorities challenged the Tribunal's decision, contending that the respondents failed to establish the actual cost of transportation incurred or related to the import of the goods in question.Issue 5:The legal interpretation of the cost of transportation in relation to Time Charter was a significant aspect of the case, with references made to previous judgments such as Union of India v. Gosalia Shipping Pvt. Ltd.Issue 6:The Supreme Court addressed the submissions made by both parties regarding the cost of transportation for imports from Bahrain and Brazil, ultimately directing the respondent to pay the cost of transportation for Bahrain imports at 20% of the Free on Board (FOB) value.Issue 7:In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by providing a specific direction on the cost of transportation for Bahrain imports, clarifying that this direction would not serve as the basis for any penalty or interest to be levied against the respondent or their officers.