2025 (10) TMI 186 - AT - Customs

Reassessment using retail sale price invalid; no statutory authority under Customs Tariff Act s.3(1)/(2), Customs Act ss.17(4),28

Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai

CESTAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order, holding the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to reassess ... Valuation of imported goods - Additional duty / Countervailing duty (CVD) - Requirment to comply with prescription of declaration for ‘pre-packaged commodities’ in the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, issued under the Legal Metrology Act 2009 - HELD THAT:- The peculiar construct of the proceedings is not that the allegation of short-payment of duties is assailed with claim that, additional duty of customs is not chargeable under section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is not the construct of the grounds for recovery that the imported goods did not bear ‘retail sale price (RSP)’ therein for, in consignments already cleared, that, admittedly, is not verifiable. In the construct of grounds of appeal, the mandate of affixing, among other particulars, retail sale price (RSP)’, is sought to be delinked from their obligations upon import. The proceedings were initiated for recovery of ‘additional duty of customs’ under the authority of section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the ‘retail sale price (RSP)’ instead of on the ‘transaction value’ to which ‘basic customs duty (BCD)’ had been added and liability discharged thereon by the appellant. The proviso in section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, carving out exception from uniform valuation scheme prevailing till then for all imported articles, was incorporated by Finance Act, 2001 [Finance Act, 2001 (Act 14 of 2001), section 116 with effect from 1st March 2001] and to keep up with the treatment accorded to domestic manufacture for levy of duties under Central Excise Act, 1944 with incorporation of section 4A [Finance Act, 1997 (Act 26 of 1997), section 82 with effect from 14th May 1997] therein. Under the authority of this latter provision, notifications enumerating the articles carved out for segregation from standard valuation mechanism and abatement from ‘retail sale price (RSP)’ came to be issued and which, in turn, was, by the construct supra in the proviso, to be deployed for assessment of imported goods to additional duty of customs. The impugned proceedings were premised on such authority for ‘post-clearance’ revision vesting in ‘proper officer’ in section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 as that empowering ‘proper officer’ for recovery of duties, not paid or short-paid, under Central Excise Act, 1944. It is evident from a harmonious reading of section 3(1) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and section 3(2) therein, that additional duty of customs ‘equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India’ was not intended to be the amount of duty to be discharged by a domestic manufacturer on clearance of like goods but only for applicable rate of duty of excise to be charged on the value of the imported goods; thus, till section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was varied in the manner, there was no scope for dispute over valuation for assessment of ‘additional duty of customs’ except in consequence of controversy attending on assessment of ‘basic customs duty (BCD)’ leviable on imported goods - When legislative sanction is for self-assessment to be effected against self-declaration with no benchmark for ascertainment until after clearance and any discrepancy thereafter being cause for charging duties of central excise as ‘deemed manufacture’, there is no scope for revisit of assessment effected at the time of clearance of imported goods either then under section 17(4) of Customs Act, 1962 or later under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. There is no evidence that the goods had, at any stage, been sold at a price which was forced on their customers through lack of dissemination. There is no authority drawn from the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 or any of the rules framed thereunder to appropriate empowerment to re-assess value of impugned goods. The authority to re-assess the value under Customs Act, 1962 is limited to Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and refers only to ‘transaction value’ which is of relevance only to section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority has not established the empowerment invoked under section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 nor of the competence to re-determine the value for the purpose of assessment under section 17(4) of Customs Act, 1962 from which power was further drawn to recover duty, not paid or short-paid, under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. In view of this jurisdictional lack of competence to re-assess the duty on the goods, the recovery of differential duty and the fastening of consequence of such recovery, as well as confiscation of goods, fails. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether additional duty of customs under section 3(1) read with proviso to section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 can be re-determined post-clearance by invoking a deemed 'retail sale price (RSP)' where imported goods do not bear RSP on packages as required by the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. 2. Whether parts of forklift trucks and material-handling equipment imported for supply to existing customers (industrial/institutional consumers or for after-sale service) fall within the scope of 'packages intended for retail sale' under the Legal Metrology rules and thereby attract RSP-based valuation for additional duty. 3. Whether officers of Customs have statutory competence to apply Central Excise valuation machinery (including the Central Excise Rules determining RSP) to re-determine value for levy of additional duty of customs, including reliance on rules framed under the Central Excise Act. 4. Whether absence of a legislated machinery to determine RSP (for certain periods) prevents re-assessment of additional duty based on RSP and precludes recovery under sections 17(4) and 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Whether evidentiary and procedural requirements were met to justify imposition of differential duty, interest and penalties predicated on re-determined RSP and consequent confiscation. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Power to re-determine additional duty by invoking RSP where RSP not declared on package Legal framework: Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act charges additional duty equal to excise duty leviable on a like article; section 3(2) prescribes that value for such additional duty shall be the aggregate determined under section 14 of the Customs Act, subject to a proviso deeming value to be RSP where RSP declaration on package is required by Legal Metrology rules and the article is covered by notifications under section 4A of the Central Excise Act. Customs Act sections 17(4) and 28 permit reassessment and recovery of duties not paid or short-paid. Precedent treatment: Tribunal and larger-bench decisions have held that where statutory machinery to determine RSP was not in force for a period, RSP cannot be ascertained by retrospective application of rules made under the Central Excise Act; decisions also affirm that valuation rules under Customs Act for transaction value cannot be supplanted by excise RSP rules in absence of enabling provision. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasons that the proviso to section 3(2) creates a limited exception to the general transaction-value based valuation and that the deeming of value as RSP operates only where the Legal Metrology statute requires declaration of RSP and the imported goods are within the class notified under section 4A. The RSP concept is a self-declared ceiling imprinted on pre-packaged goods and lacks an independent surrogate benchmark akin to transaction value; absent a statutorily prescribed machinery for ascertaining RSP, customs authorities cannot validly re-determine value for additional duty post-clearance by applying excise valuation rules. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - RSP-based valuation for additional duty cannot be re-determined post-clearance by customs in the absence of statutory machinery permitting ascertainment of RSP; Obiter - observations on legislative history and policy behind legal metrology. Conclusion: Re-determination of additional duty on the basis of an RSP not declared on packages and ascertained by applying excise rules is impermissible; recovery under section 28 based on such re-determination is invalid. Issue 2 - Applicability of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules to imported parts supplied to institutional/industrial customers or for after-sale service Legal framework: The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 apply to 'packages intended for retail sale'; rule 3 provides exclusions (e.g., industrial/institutional consumers) from stipulatory marking. The proviso to section 3(2) and associated notifications focus on goods for which declaration of RSP is required under Legal Metrology and listed under central excise notifications. Precedent treatment: Earlier rulings recognize that chapter 2 of the Legal Metrology rules is limited to packages intended for retail sale and that industrial/institutional use is an exclusion; authorities must demonstrate that goods passed through a retail channel to attract RSP deeming. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court finds that the imported goods were parts intended for incorporation into equipment or for after-sale service to existing customers (manufacturers or service providers), and thus fall within the industrial/institutional category. The onus lay on customs to demonstrate the contrary (i.e., that goods were intended for retail sale), which was not discharged. The adjudicating authority's reliance on central excise conceptions of 'manufacture' or on exemption-notification strictness was misplaced for determining applicability of Legal Metrology rules in this context. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Parts imported for supply to institutional/industrial customers or for after-sale service are not prima facie within 'packages intended for retail sale' and Legal Metrology RSP obligations do not automatically apply; Obiter - commentary on misapplication of exemption-notification jurisprudence. Conclusion: The impugned goods were not shown to be within the scope of Legal Metrology RSP requirements; Customs failed to prove that the RSP-deeming proviso applied. Issue 3 - Competence of Customs officers to apply Central Excise RSP rules and to use excise-rule methodologies to re-determine RSP Legal framework: Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 were framed under section 4A of the Central Excise Act; Customs valuation rules and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules apply to transaction value for basic customs duty under section 14 of the Customs Act. Section 3(2) proviso limits recourse to Customs Act valuation where RSP deeming applies. Precedent treatment: Tribunal decisions have held that excise RSP rules cannot be invoked by customs authorities to determine value for additional duty absent statutory empowerment; the later-made excise rules cannot be applied retrospectively to periods before their coming into force to determine RSP. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasizes the distinct statutory schemes and that excise rules framed under the Central Excise Act are not instruments that vest customs officers with power to determine surrogate RSP for imported goods. In the absence of specific machinery within Customs law akin to excise RSP rules (or a notification linking the two with operative mechanics), customs cannot adopt excise valuation methods to revise additional duty post-clearance. Reliance on excise rule 6 or similar provisions by customs adjudicating authority is legally untenable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Customs officers lack statutory competence to apply Central Excise RSP determination rules to re-value imported goods for additional duty; Obiter - legislative history explaining why separation of machinery matters. Conclusion: Invocation of excise RSP rules by Customs to re-determine assessable value for additional duty is not sanctioned; consequent demands based on such exercise are invalid. Issue 4 - Effect of absence of legislated machinery (temporal and substantive) to determine RSP on post-clearance reassessment and recovery Legal framework: The Central Excise RSP Rules came into force at a specified date; prior to that effective machinery for determining RSP was lacking. Section 28 of the Customs Act enables recovery of duties not paid or short-paid, but the power is constrained by the statutory bases of assessment. Precedent treatment: Larger Bench decisions have held that absent rule-based machinery, RSP cannot be ascertained for periods before the excise rules came into force, and recovery based on retrospective or extrapolated RSP determination is barred. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court explains that the absence of a surrogate valuation mechanism akin to Customs Valuation Rules prevents a legitimate re-assessment of RSP after clearance. The proviso to section 3(2) contemplates RSP declared under Legal Metrology and registered via excise notifications; where those mechanisms are absent or inapplicable, reopening valuation under section 28 would subvert statutory scheme and lack legal foundation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Lack of statutory machinery for determining RSP disables post-clearance reassessment and recovery of additional duty premised on RSP; Obiter - remarks on administrative concerns and exchequer interest being insufficient to justify contrived valuation methods. Conclusion: Absence of enabling machinery precludes re-determination of RSP and recovery of differential additional duty under sections 17(4)/28; the impugned reassessment is jurisdictionally infirm. Issue 5 - Evidentiary sufficiency and legality of penalties, interest and confiscation imposed on basis of re-determined RSP Legal framework: Penalties under Customs Act provisions attach where duty is found unpaid or short-paid in consequence of misdeclaration or contravention; interest under section 28AA follows on recovery of duty; confiscation follows where statutory conditions are met. Validity depends on lawful establishment of duty liability. Precedent treatment: Decisions follow the principle that penalties and consequential measures cannot stand if the foundational duty determination is invalid for lack of jurisdiction or statutory authority. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court holds that because the re-determination of value and fixation of additional duty were legally impermissible for reasons stated above (lack of applicability of Legal Metrology RSP, lack of machinery, and lack of competence to invoke excise rules), all consequential fiscal consequences (differential duty, interest, penalties, confiscation) founded on that re-determination fall with it. The adjudicating authority also failed to establish evidentiary facts (e.g., sale at the adopted RSP; that buyers were not institutional consumers) necessary to sustain the demand. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Penalties, interest and confiscation predicated on an invalid reassessment are unsustainable; Obiter - comments on burden of proof regarding customer classification. Conclusion: The fiscal consequences imposed on the basis of the defective valuation are invalid and must be set aside. OVERALL CONCLUSION The Court finds lack of jurisdictional and statutory competence in the adjudicating authority to re-determine value for additional duty of customs by invoking RSP (absent Legal Metrology coverage and in absence of enabling machinery); Customs could not validly apply Central Excise RSP rules or re-assess post-clearance on that basis. The impugned re-determination of duty, and consequential interest, penalties and confiscation, are set aside and the appeals are allowed.