HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (CESTAT) examined whether differential customs duty could be demanded by rejecting the declared transaction value of imported gold bars based on higher amounts remitted to foreign suppliers at a later stage. The appeal arose from orders of the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) which had confirmed demands of differential duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that the importer had remitted amounts higher than the value declared in the Bills of Entry for seven consignments of gold bars.
The importer had imported gold bars on a consignment basis and declared value in the Bills of Entry, on which customs duty was assessed and paid. Following a change in the duty structure from specific duty to ad valorem duty under Customs Notification No. 02/2012 dated 16.01.2012, the Revenue sought details of sale prices, remittances, customs duty recovered, local taxes, and contracts with foreign suppliers. Upon scrutiny of the information furnished, the Revenue found that the remittances made to suppliers were higher than the declared values and issued a show cause notice proposing recovery of differential duty with interest.
