Collector Of Customs, Ahmedabad Vs. Jayant Oil Mills (P) Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3633 of 1986
Petitioner: Collector Of Customs, Ahmedabad
Respondent: Jayant Oil Mills (P) Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3633 of 1986
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J. & S.P. BHARUCHA, J.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 1997
Head Note:
CUSTOMS
Customs Act, 1962
Section 14 – Assessment of duty – Payment of interest – If includible in price of goods for assessment. Held that it is not includible as it did not go to seller nor it swelled up to price of goods.
Customs Act, 1962
Section 14 – Assessment of duty – Payment of interest – If includible in price of goods for assessment. Held that it is not includible as it did not go to seller nor it swelled up to price of goods.
Section 14 – Assessment – Redemption fine reduced by Tribunal without adequate reasons – Redemption fine estimated on being pursuaded by Counsel. Held that there is no reasons to interfere in the estimation arrived at by Tribunal.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
Two questions were raised by the learned ASG at the hearing of this appeal, namely, (1) whether the payment of interest would have to be added to the price of the goods to arrive at the assessable value for the purposes of assessment of duty in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and (2) whether the amount of redemption fine would have been reduced by the Appellate Tribunal without giving adequate reasons therefor. We have pe-rused the line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal on both these issues and we are of the opinion that on the language of Section 14 and the fact that the amount of interest did not go to the seller but to the banker it reached the conclusion that the interest did not swell up the price of goods but was on account of the 120 days’ time allowed to the assessee. The Tribunal was right in holding that the price continued to be US dollars 556.75 per metric ton and, therefore, this contention was rejected. So far as the second contention is concerned it may be mentioned that when it was realised that the redemption fine was based on the notes of the Collector which could not be described as evi-dence,the only alternative left to the Tribunal was to remit the matter to the authority below but on being persuaded by counsel to estimate the redemption fine the Tribunal worked it out at 35% considering that to be a reliable estimate of the margin of profit at the material time. We see no reason to interfere with this estimate arrived at by the Tribunal. For the above reasons, we see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
Two questions were raised by the learned ASG at the hearing of this appeal, namely, (1) whether the payment of interest would have to be added to the price of the goods to arrive at the assessable value for the purposes of assessment of duty in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and (2) whether the amount of redemption fine would have been reduced by the Appellate Tribunal without giving adequate reasons therefor. We have pe-rused the line of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal on both these issues and we are of the opinion that on the language of Section 14 and the fact that the amount of interest did not go to the seller but to the banker it reached the conclusion that the interest did not swell up the price of goods but was on account of the 120 days’ time allowed to the assessee. The Tribunal was right in holding that the price continued to be US dollars 556.75 per metric ton and, therefore, this contention was rejected. So far as the second contention is concerned it may be mentioned that when it was realised that the redemption fine was based on the notes of the Collector which could not be described as evi-dence,the only alternative left to the Tribunal was to remit the matter to the authority below but on being persuaded by counsel to estimate the redemption fine the Tribunal worked it out at 35% considering that to be a reliable estimate of the margin of profit at the material time. We see no reason to interfere with this estimate arrived at by the Tribunal. For the above reasons, we see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
