Retail sale price valuation cannot apply to projectors imported for lease; actual freight, insurance and amendment evidence prevail.

Retail sale price-based CVD assessment was impermissible for imported projectors brought in for installation on a lease or right-to-use basis, because the goods were not intended for retail sale; duty had to be assessed on transaction value. Notional freight at 20% of FOB value could not be substituted where actual freight was available on record, and the same principle applied to insurance: a deemed 1.125% value could not override actual insurance charges. Bills of Entry were also liable to amendment under section 149 on the basis of contemporaneous documents supporting the import valuation. The impugned order was set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CVD could be assessed on retail sale price basis when the imported projectors were not intended for retail sale but for lease or right to use; (ii) whether freight could be enhanced to 20% of FOB value despite actual freight being available; (iii) whether insurance could be enhanced to 1.125% of FOB value despite actual insurance being available; and whether amendment of the Bills of Entry under section 149 was permissible on the basis of contemporaneous documents.

Issue (i): Whether CVD could be assessed on retail sale price basis when the imported projectors were not intended for retail sale but for lease or right to use.

Analysis: The imported projectors were found to have been brought in for installation in cinema halls on a right-to-use basis and not for outright retail sale. In such circumstances, the statutory condition for retail sale price based assessment was not satisfied, since goods not intended for retail sale do not require declaration of retail sale price. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that where the imported article is not intended for retail sale, assessment cannot be made on RSP or MRP basis and valuation must follow transaction value.

Conclusion: The challenge to RSP-based assessment succeeded and duty was held payable on transaction value, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether freight could be enhanced to 20% of FOB value despite actual freight being available.

Analysis: The record showed that actual freight charges were available and had been paid. Under the customs valuation rules, adoption of a notional freight figure at 20% of FOB value is justified only when actual freight cannot be ascertained. Since ascertainable actual freight existed, the notional enhancement lacked justification.

Conclusion: The freight enhancement was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether insurance could be enhanced to 1.125% of FOB value despite actual insurance being available, and whether amendment of the Bills of Entry under section 149 was permissible on the basis of contemporaneous documents.

Analysis: The actual insurance charges were available on record, so a deemed insurance value could not be substituted. The amendment request was supported by documents existing at the time of import, and no legal basis remained to deny amendment once the underlying valuation assumptions were found unsustainable. The Bills of Entry were therefore liable to be amended on the strength of contemporaneous evidence.

Conclusion: The insurance enhancement was set aside and amendment under section 149 was allowed, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Retail sale price based assessment is impermissible for imported goods not intended for retail sale, and notional freight or insurance values cannot be adopted where actual charges are ascertainable from contemporaneous records.

---