2025 (5) TMI 1933 - AT - Customs

Appeals allowed against differential duty demand on imported goods due to FOB value calculation error

M/s Delphi Automotive Systems, Shri Nirdesh Karnawat, Director & Chief Financial Manager, M/s Delphi Automotive Systems Private Limited, Shri Kulbhushan Malik, Director M/s Delphi Automotive Systems Private Limited, Shri Prashanth Kumar Nath, Ex-Country Manager, Customs, M/s Delphi Automotive Systems Private Limited, Shri Naresh Gambhir, Managing Director, M/s Sash global Logistics Private Limited, Shri M.S. Bedi, Director of M/s PSB Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, (Preventive), New Customs House, Near IGI Airport, New Delhi

CESTAT New Delhi allowed appeals challenging differential duty demand on imported goods. The dispute arose from treating ex-works price as FOB value in ... Demand of differential - Treatment of ex-works price, FOB value, and the addition of transportation and insurance costs - Determination of the assessable value - reckoned for delivery at the place of importation - extended period of limitation under section 28 - non-payment or short payment by reason collusion or willful statement or suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the legal position – that the duty must be levied on CIF value and for this purposes cost of freight, if the goods are transported by air should be restricted to 20% of the FOB value. In all these Bills of Entry, the ex-works price was given as the FOB value and the cost of local freight up to the place of export was also added to the cost of transport. As a result, the amount which has been reckoned as the cost of air transport has been reduced from 20% of FOB to 20% to the ex-works price. Hence, the demand of differential duty. There is no doubt that there was a mis-statement on the part of the appellants because they declared the ex-works price as FOB value. The question is if it was willful or it was a genuine oversight. According to the appellants that was genuine oversight. According to the Revenue, the mis-statement was willful to evade payment of duty. In this context, we note that all the Bills of Entry were assessed by the officers and they had all the documents which the appellant had. They could have also called for any additional documents. However, the officers also assessed the Bills of Entry considering the ex-works price as the FOB value. We do not find any allegation in the show cause notice that the officers had somehow colluded in the short payment of duty. Therefore, there is no evidence of any collusion. It was evidently an honest mistake on the part of the officers who assessed the Bills of Entry as well as on the part of the appellants. Hence, we find that extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts of these cases. For the same reason, we find that the imposition of penalties also cannot be sustained. As entire period of demand falls within the extended period of limitation, the entire demand needs to be set aside. Thus, all appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with consequential relief to the appellants. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in the judgment are:Whether the assessable value of imported goods was correctly determined under Section 14 of the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, particularly regarding the treatment of ex-works price, FOB value, and the addition of transportation and insurance costs.Whether the appellants' declaration of ex-works price as FOB value constituted a willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, justifying invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act.Whether penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act could be imposed on the appellants for alleged mis-declaration and evasion of duty.The applicability and interpretation of the proviso to Rule 10(2) of the Valuation Rules limiting air freight cost addition to 20% of FOB value, and whether the appellants' method of calculation was legally correct.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Correct Determination of Assessable Value under Section 14 and Valuation RulesThe legal framework governing the valuation of imported goods is Section 14 of the Customs Act, which mandates that duties be levied on the transaction value, defined as the price paid or payable for delivery of goods at the place and time of importation. The Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, formulated under Section 14, particularly Rule 3 and Rule 10, elaborate that the transaction value should be adjusted by adding certain costs not included therein, such as transport and transit insurance costs.Rule 10(2) specifically requires inclusion of transport cost up to the place of importation and transit insurance if these are not part of the transaction value. The proviso to Rule 10(2) caps the cost of air transport at 20% of the FOB value to prevent excessive valuation due to high air freight charges.In this case, the invoices were issued on an ex-works basis, which is the price at the exporter's factory gate, excluding local transport to the port of export. The appellants declared the ex-works price as FOB value in their Bills of Entry and added the cost of local transport and air freight accordingly. However, the correct approach, as per the Court's interpretation, would have been to first add local transport cost to the ex-works price to arrive at the FOB value, and then apply the 20% cap on air freight based on this FOB value. The appellants' method effectively applied the 20% cap on the ex-works price, resulting in an under-valuation of the assessable value and consequent short payment of duty.The Court emphasized that the legal position is clear and undisputed: the assessable value must be based on CIF value, which includes the FOB value plus transport and insurance costs, with the proviso limiting air freight to 20% of FOB value.Issue 2: Whether the Mis-declaration was Willful or a Genuine OversightThe Department alleged that the appellants willfully mis-declared the ex-works price as FOB value to evade customs duty, thus justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The appellants contended that the mistake was genuine and unintentional, supported by the fact that all Bills of Entry were assessed by Customs officers who had access to all relevant documents, including invoices and airway bills showing separate costs of freight and local transport.The Court noted that there was no allegation or evidence of collusion between the appellants and Customs officers, who themselves accepted the ex-works price as FOB value during assessment. The absence of any show cause notice alleging collusion or suppression of facts further supported the appellants' claim of an honest mistake. The Court found that the mis-statement was not willful but a genuine oversight shared by both the appellants and the officers.Issue 3: Imposition of Penalties under Sections 114A and 114AAPenalties under Sections 114A and 114AA are imposed for mis-declaration and evasion of duty, which require a finding of willful intent or suppression of facts. Given the Court's conclusion that the mis-declaration was not willful but an honest mistake, the imposition of penalties could not be sustained. The Court held that without evidence of willful mis-statement or suppression, penalties were inappropriate.Issue 4: Application of Proviso to Rule 10(2) of Valuation Rules Regarding Air FreightThe proviso caps the addition of air freight cost to 20% of FOB value to prevent inflated valuation due to high air transport charges. The appellants' error was in applying this cap to the ex-works price rather than the FOB value, which should have included local transport cost to the port of export. The Court clarified that the correct application requires calculation of FOB value first (ex-works price plus local transport), then applying the 20% cap on air freight cost based on this FOB value.The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the Customs EDI system did not allow declaration of ex-works value separately, noting that the appellants could have declared the FOB value correctly by adding local transport cost or by declaring local transport as 'other charges'. The Court observed that transactions on ex-works basis are common and that proper valuation practices are well-established.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court made the following crucial legal determinations and established core principles:'The duty must be levied on CIF value and for this purpose cost of freight, if the goods are transported by air should be restricted to 20% of the FOB value.''In all these Bills of Entry, the ex-works price was given as the FOB value and the cost of local freight up to the place of export was also added to the cost of transport. As a result, the amount which has been reckoned as the cost of air transport has been reduced from 20% of FOB to 20% of the ex-works price. Hence, the demand of differential duty.''There is no evidence of any collusion. It was evidently an honest mistake on the part of the officers who assessed the Bills of Entry as well as on the part of the appellants.''Extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the facts of these cases.''For the same reason, we find that the imposition of penalties also cannot be sustained.'Final determinations:The assessable value was under-declared due to incorrect treatment of ex-works price as FOB value and misapplication of the 20% cap on air freight cost.The mis-declaration was not willful but a genuine oversight shared by both the appellants and Customs officers.The extended period of limitation under Section 28 could not be invoked as there was no willful mis-statement or suppression of facts.Penalties under Sections 114A and 114AA could not be imposed in the absence of willful intent.All demands based on extended limitation period and penalties were set aside, and the appeals allowed.