MMTC Pamp India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT (Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi upheld the inclusion of metal lease charges in assessable value since the same was paid as a condition of sale and not paid in nature of interest. Accordingly, differential duty demand confirmed.
Facts- M/s MMTC Pamp India Pvt. Ltd. has sought quashing of the order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs House, New Delhi insofar as it confirms the demand of differential customs duty on the appellant to the extent of Rs. 164,75,70,456/- u/s. 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 with interest u/s. 28AA of the Customs Act.
Notably, the transaction value of the gold/silver dore bars imported by the appellant has been rejected due the difference in value, basis the final invoice has to be included in the assessable value; metal lease charges have to be included in the assessable value; and post-import insurance premium has to be included in the assessable value.
Conclusion- Held that the Principal Commissioner also found that before the RBI the appellant stated that no interest payment was made to the overseas supplier and, therefore, the appellant could not take up a case before the customs authority that interest was paid. The appellant reiterated the submissions that were advanced before the Principal Commissioner but could not dispute that the ownership of the imported goods was not transferred to the appellant at the time of importation of the goods. In view of the specific terms of the Agreement and the stand taken by the appellant before the RBI, it is clear that metal lease charges were not in the nature of interest. The Principal Commissioner, therefore, was justified in upholding the demand of differential duty on metal lease charges.
