TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs agreeing that the price of said raw material shall be on CIF basis i.e. in addition to value of goods to be imported raw material, the value would also include cost of rate from port of loading till the port of discharge. Department, however, got the intelligence that for the purpose of determination of assessable value, the appellants had taken into consideration the standard freight paid by them. However, in certain cases, where the appellants were paying demurrage charges/barge charges in addition to agreed CIF prices, the appellants failed to include the cost paid over and above the standard freight in the assessable value thereby resulting into undervaluation of the subject goods while importing them in India. It is alleged that the said non-inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value was with the sole intention to evade the customs duty to the extent of Rs. 415,99,036/-. 1.2 With these allegations that a show cause notice bearing no. 63/2016/7245 dated 29.03.2017 was served upon the appellants proposing the demand of the aforesaid amount of differential customs duty payable on the impugned goods imported through Kandla Sea Port was also proposed to be recover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2024) 16 Centax 318 (S.C.). 3. Jubilant Life Science Limited v. Additional Director General (Adj) CESTAT, New Delhi Final Order No. 51288/2019 in Customs Appeal No. 53440 of 2018-DB 3.2 Finally it is submitted that extended period has wrongly been invoked while issuing the impugned show cause notice and demand under sub-section 4 of section 28 Customs Act, 1962 has wrongly been confirmed alongwith the penalties. Interest is also not payable under section 28AA of the Customs Act for demurrage charges to not to be the part of the assessable value. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Learned DR on the other hand has reiterated the findings arrived at by the original adjudicating authority. It is submitted that appellant in their sale agreement have admitted their liability towards all additional charges. Impressing upon no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. It is, however, acknowledged that this Tribunal has been following the adjudication of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa rendered in Tata Steel Ltd (Supra) case. 5. Havi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the buyer and the seller shall be deemed to be related: (ii) the manner of determination of value in respect of goods when there is no sale, or the buyer and the seller are related, or price is not the sole consideration for the sale or in any other case; (ii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of value declared by the importer or exporter, as the case may be, where the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of such value, and determination of value for the purposes of this section: Provided also that such price shall be calculated with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a Bill of Entry is presented under Section 46 or a shipping bill of export, as the case may be, is presented under Section 50. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if the Board is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix tariff values for any class of imported goods or export goods, having regard to the trend of value of such or like goods, and where any such tariff values are fixed, the duty shall be chargeable with reference to such tar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta reported in 2000 (122) E.L.T. 615 wherein it was held as follows: "4. ......that if demurrage charges would form a part of the assessable value, the goods covered by the same contract would be assessed to duty at different assessable values and such a situation is not envisaged in the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The Union of India, Opposite Party No. 1 challenged the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed as reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) and the decision of the Tribunal, as above, was upheld." 8. Since the show cause notice has not invoked the said provision, the findings based on said provision for confirming the demand of differential duty are definitely beyond show cause notice and are liable to be set aside for this reason also. We draw our support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd reported as 2006 (201) E.L.T. 513 S.C. 9. Finally coming to the plea of invocation of extended period of limitation, we observe that excep....