Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. on 14 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(98)ELT273(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The Respondents/Importers had claimed invoice value of US $ 13.40 per kg. C.I.F. for a consignment of 1,250 kgs. of Theophyline Anhydrous BP. The Assistant Collector relying upon the contemporaneous import fixed the value of US $ 14.00 per kg. The Collector (Appeals) held that there was minor fluctuations in the international transactions where goods are imported from different Countries. The margin between the price was not wide enough to raise suspicion. No doubt had been expressed by the department that invoice value was not genuine. He set aside the enhancement of the value resulting into the present appeal.
2. Shri K. Srivastava, SDR argued the case for the Revenue. The respondents were not present but desired disposal on merit.
3. Shri Srivastava clarified that there was only one letter from the Importer and that was dated 8-10-1988. In the grounds of appeal paragraph 3 a reference to the letter dated 18-10-1988 should be accordingly corrected. It was his argument that since the Bill of Entry was filed on 8-8-1988, the date of entry inwards of the vessel was not material. The Valuation Rules came into effect from 16-8-1988 and, therefore, the relevant date for valuation was 8-8-1988 at which time new rules could not be made applicable. It was his claim that when the deemed value was available, there was no justification for accepting the transaction value.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned SDR.
5. Section 46 of the Customs Act requires a bill of entry to be filed by the Importer. Sub-section (3) provides that bill of entry can be filed after delivery of the import-manifest but can also be filed prior to the filing of the import-manifest. In terms of Section 30 import-manifest is to be filed within twenty-four hours after arrival of the vessel carrying the imported goods. Section 15 prescribes that date of bill of entry is the material date for determination of the rate of duty and tariff valuation and also prescribes that bill of entry shall be deemed to be presented on the date of entry of inwards where bill of entry has been filed before that date. What the law thus prescribes is that bill of entry is document to be processed only after the goods have been imported in India. In the present case, the bill of entry was dated 8-8-1988 but the final entry of the vessel was on 31-8-1988. Therefore, the law which prevailed on the date of entry inwards would be applicable for assessment of the goods even if bill of entry in their respect was filed before such arrival. Shri Srivastava submits that this would be valid only for determination of the rate of duty and not for the purpose of valuation which would be determined in terms of Section 14 of the Act which does not make distinction between prior bill of entry and the final bill of entry.
6. We have carefully examined this submission. It is correct that Section 15 speaks of the date of determination of rate of duty but does not go into valuation except for tariff valuation. However, Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of valuation centres upon the price for delivery at the time and place of importation. The entry inwards of the vessel is the date immediately following the point of physical import of the goods and, therefore, situation spoken in Sub-section (1) of Section 14 will occur only when the goods are physically imported where the date on the prior bill of entry would not be material in terms of this sub-section. We do not find merit in Shri Srivastava's plea and hold that in the situation on hand the import was complete on 31-8-1988 on which date the Valuation Rules had application. In their judgment in the case of Dhiraj Lai R. Vohra -1993 (66) E.L.T. 551 the Supreme Court held that the relevant date for imported goods in the case of prior bill of entry was the date of entry inwards only and all other dates were not relevant. This ruling is applicable to the case in hand.
7. The Valuation Rules prescribe that transaction value should be accepted subject to certain exceptions embodied in Rule 4. The Collector was clear in his order in recording that in transaction value system minor variations have to exist. He also correctly observed that where there was no allegation of under invoicing the transaction value had to be accepted. In the letter of the Importer also on which the Assistant Collector relied upon in his order the variation between price was marginal from $ 14 to $ 13.6. Both the values had been accepted by the Customs. The Collector was correct in stating that in such situation there was no reason for not accepting the transaction value of US $ 13.40 per kg. We find no merit in the submissions made in the appeal. We uphold the order of the Collector and dismiss this appeal.