Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Kesoram Industries And Cotton Mills ... vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 6 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993(64)ELT214(TRI-DEL)
ORDER S.V. Maruthi, Member (J)
1. The appeal arises out of an order of the Collector No. Cal-Cus/2278/83 rejecting the claim of the appellants for refund of customs duty paid on parts of steam turbine.
2. The appellants imported a consignment consisting of certain parts of steam turbine of a total value of DM 29.388/09 FOB. In the covering invoices of the goods, Item No. 3 namely spares for Main Oil Pumps which was shown under 6 sub-items, a consolidated value of DM-12300 was given. The Assistant Collector assessed the goods at the highest rate under Section 19 of the Customs Act on the ground that itemwise value was not available. The appellants filed a refund claim for duty paid on highest rate. The Assistant Collector rejected the same. On appeal, the Collector confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector. Hence, the appeal before us.
3. The Assistant Collector held that in the absence of itemwise value, assessment done under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962 is correct. The Collector held that where goods consist of a set of articles liable to duty at different rates, the duty shall be chargeable at the highest of such rates. While holding as above, he confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector.
4. When the case was called, none appeared for the appellants and they sought a decision on merits.
5. The main question for consideration is whether the goods imported are a set of articles warranting an assessment under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods imported are :
(i) Pump Impeller - Part No. 20 (ii) Bearing Bush - Part No. 25 (iii) Governor Impeller - Part No. 30 (iv) Sealing Ring - Part No. 14 (v) Seal Ring - Part No. 39 (vi) Spring - Part No. 426. The total value i.e. consolidated value of the above goods is DM 12300 FOB. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim on the ground that these goods consist of set of articles and therefore, the highest value i.e. the Spring Part should be the basis for making the assessments in respect of other articles. The appellants filed before the Collector, the manufacturer's certificate indicating the individual value of each item. However, the Collector appears to have not considered the same.
7. Section 19 of the Customs Act reads as follows :
"Section 19. Determination of duty where goods consist of articles liable to different rates of duty. - Except as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, where goods consist of a set of articles, duty shall be calculated as follows :-
(a) ...
(b) articles liable to duty with reference to value shall, if they arc liable to duty at the same rate, be chargeable to duty at that rate, and if they are liable to duty at different rates, be chargeable to duty at the highest of such rates;
(c) ...
Provided that, -
(a) ...
(b) If the importer produces evidence to the satisfaction of the proper officer regarding the value of any of the articles liable to different rates of duty such article shall be chargeable to duty separately at the rate applicable to it."
Under proviso (b) of the section, if the importer produces evidence to the satisfaction of the proper officer regarding the value of any of the articles liable to different rates of duty such articles shall be chargeable to duty separately at the rate applicable to it. In other words, the assessment under Section 19 can be made only in cases where the value of the articles is not available. Since the manufacturer's certificate was filed and since it was not considered by the Collector, though it was filed before him, we direct the Assistant Collector to reconsider the refund claim of the appellants in the light of the manufacturer's certificate. We accordingly allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to dispose of the matter in the light of the above observations.
Misc. Application No. C/87/91-B2
8. This application is filed for receiving the manufacturer's certificate dtd. March-Nov. 1983 in the form of letter dtd. 14-11-1983 on record. The main ground on which this certificate is sought to be relied upon is that the manufacturer's certificate indicates the individual price of each article imported by the appellants and though this certificate was filed by them before the Collector, the Collector has not considered the same as it was not officially filed before him under a proper receipt.
9. Admittedly, the manufacturer's certificate was not before the lower authorities. We, therefore, direct the Collector to take on record this document namely, the manufacturer's certificate dtd. 3-11-1983. The Collector should also take into account the letter dtd. 11-11-1983 written by the appellants to the manufacturer. These two documents are therefore taken on record. The application is allowed accordingly.
Misc. Application No. C/88/91-B2
10. This is an application for reassessment of goods imported by the appellants. The appellants imported certain items of spares under invoice No. E/532/131-323 dtd. 16-4-1982 against their purchase order dtd. 15-10-1980. They cleared the goods under B/E dtd. 29-9-1982.
11. The goods comprise of four different sets of items and they were assessed by the customs authorities under different tariff headings at the highest rate. The first item is "Bellow for Hydraulic Speed Governor" and in the B/E it is shown as "Spares for Siemens Turbine 1550 KWT-1960" having part No. 43, Drawing No. JB-1899-0925. The fourth item in the Bill of Entry is "Turbine Thrust Bearing' turbine front journal bearing and turbine rear journal bearing. The customs have assessed them under Heading 83.01/15(2) and 84.63(2). The appellants by this application are seeking reassessment of the goods under Tariff Heading 84.04/05 on the ground that they are spares and they are easily recognisable as parts of steam turbine.
12. We reject the above application as the assessment was made long time back and the assessee has not filed any appeal against the assessment. If at all any remedy is available, they should have gone in appeal to the Collector. This is not the forum to challenge the assessment order. Therefore, we reject the application.