Case Law Details

Case Name : Wipro Ltd Vs Assistant Collecter of Customs & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 Of 2003
Date of Judgement/Order : 16/04/2015
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : Supreme Court of India (987)

Brief Facts of the case

The subject matter in the present case is the constitutional validity of proviso (II-i) of Rule 9(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of   Imported   Goods)   Rules,   1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Valuation Rules”). This proviso has been inserted by Notification No.39/90 dated 05.07.1990 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Union of India. As per the appellant, this proviso is not only ultravires Section 14(1) and Section 14(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) but is also violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Mini and Micro Computer Systems and peripheral devices like printer, drivers etc.   It, inter alia, imported various components including software from time to time. The appellant presented a Bill of Entry No.15020 dated 15.04.1993.   The chargeable weight of the consignment was 315 kgs and the actual loading, unloading and handling charges amounted to Rs.65.40 as per the tariff of the International Airport Authority of India, Madras (now Chennai).   However, the Customs Authorities, on the basis of the impugned notification added a sum of Rs.15,214.69 to the value of the goods as handling charges as the impugned provision entitles the authorities to add 1% of the F.O.B. value of goods on account of loading, unloading and handling charges. The actual duty charged, as a consequence of addition of the notional handling charges, amounted to Rs.16,209.20 instead of Rs.69.98

Contentions of the Appellant

The appellant contented that such a notional fixation of the handling charges with the addition of one per cent of free on board value of the value of goods, irrespective of the nature of goods, size of the cargo, was in total disregard to the total handling charges, even when such actual handling charges could be ascertained.   It was also the submission of the appellant that the said one per cent so fixed without reference to the nature of the goods, size of the cargo and value of the goods is irrational, in the sense, high value items like components of computer, involving little or no expenses by way of handling, whereas heavy weight items like machinery, hardware might involve substantial expenditure for loading, unloading and handling. It was submitted that the handling services are rendered by the sea port and airport authorities.   The handling charges are levied on the basis of either the gross weight or chargeable weight, whichever is   higher.   Both   these   weights   are incidentally available in the air bill accompanying the consignment.   The international Airport Authorities and the port trust are having schedule of tariff and the appellant have from time to time been paying the handling charges to the authorities as per the tariff. On this basis, it was argued that such an addition was totally irrational and arbitrary, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and was also ultravires Section 14(1) and Section 14(1) (A) of the Customs Act.

Contentions of the Revenue

The revenue contented that the aforesaid amendment by pointing out that over last number of years, it was found impossible to ascertain the actual amounts incurred towards loading, unloading and handling charges while making the assessment as they varied depending upon the quantities and place of import. Finding this difficulty in actual practice and in order to achieve certainty, one per cent of the F.O.B. Value was fixed to be included in the assessable value. It was argued that once this uniformity is achieved with the aforesaid provisions, merely because some would   be getting the benefit while others would suffer certain detriment, is no reason for invalidating the provision when many others would be getting the benefit thereof as well. The percentage had been fixed by the rule making authority after taken into consideration the overall picture.

Held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

The Hon’ble Supreme Court refer to relevant provision and stated that the value of the imported goods has to be the transaction value and in those cases where transaction value cannot be determined, such a value is to be determined by resorting to Rules 5 to 8 thereof in a sequential order.   Therefore, first attempt   has   to   ascertain   the transaction value. As per the formula contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, the authorities are to find out the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for exports to India, to arrive at the value of the goods. Once this value is arrived at, it is to be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules. The final outcome, after such an adjustment made, is to be treated as transaction value to attract the import duty thereupon. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, the transaction value of the imported goods under sub-rule (1) is to be accepted, except in certain circumstances mentioned in proviso to sub-rule (2).   If any of those circumstances exists, then the value is to be determined as per sub- rule (3) of Rule 4. As per Rule 9 “cost of services”. It lays down that in determining the transactional value, cost of certain services is to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the imported goods, as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 9.

Rule 9 was amended in the year 1989 vide Notification dated 19.12.1989. With this amendment, the provisos appearing below sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 were substituted with the following proviso:

     “Provided that –

(i) Where the cost mentioned in clause (a) are not ascertainable, such cost shall be twenty per cent of the free on board value of the goods;

(ii) Where the charges mentioned at clause (b) are not ascertainable, such charges shall be one per cent of the free on board value of the goods;

(iii) Where the cost mentioned at clause (c) is not ascertainable, such cost shall be 1.125% of free on board value of the goods.

Provided further that in the case of goods imported by air, where the cost mentioned in clause (a) are ascertainable, such cost shall not exceed twenty per cent of free on board value of the goods.”

In the year 1990 i.e. vide amendment Notification dated 05.07.1990, the said provisos underwent further modification with the substitution of following provisos:

“Provided that –

(i) Where the cost of transport referred to in clause (a) is not ascertainable, such cost shall be twenty per cent of the free on board value of the goods;

(ii) the charges referred to in clause (b) shall be one per cent of the free on board value of the goods plus the cost of transport referred to in clause (a) plus the cost of insurance referred to in clause (c);

(iii) Where the cost referred to in clause (c) is not ascertainable, such cost shall be 1.125% of free on board value of the goods;

Provided further that in the case of goods imported by air, where the cost referred to in clause (a) is ascertainable, such cost shall not exceed twenty per cent of free on board value of the goods;

Provided also that where the free on board value of the goods is not ascertainable, the costs referred to in clause (a) shall be twenty per cent of the free on board value of the goods plus cost of insurance for clause (I) above and the cost referred to in clause (c) shall be 1.125% of the free on board value of the goods plus cost of transport for clause (iii) above.”

Clause (ii) of first proviso, as is clear from reading thereof, mandated addition of one per cent of the free on board value of the goods plus the cost of transport referred to in clause (a) plus the cost of insurance referred to in clause (c).

The Hon’ble Court further stated that the underlying principle contained in amended sub-section (1) of Section 14 is to consider transaction value of the goods imported or exported for the purpose of customs duty. Transaction value is stated to be a price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation. Therefore, it is the price which is actually paid or payable for delivery at the time and place of importation, which is to be treated as transaction value. However, this sub-section (1) further makes it clear that the price actually paid or payable for the goods will not be treated as transaction value where the buyer and the seller are related with each other.   In such cases, there can be a presumption that the actual price which is paid or payable for such goods is not the true reflection of the value of the goods. This Section also provides that normal price would be the sole consideration for the sale. However, this may be subject to such other conditions which can be specified in the form of Rules made in this behalf.

It can very well be seen from the Valuation Rules, 1988 that these Rules are made to facilitate arriving at the valuation of goods in all the contingencies provided in sub-section (1) of Section 14. It is only in those cases where value of the imported goods i.e. transaction value cannot be determined, that we have to resort to Rules 5 to 8 of the said Rules. The purpose of these Rules is to fix the transaction value of the goods notionally. However, even when the fiction is applied, the scheme and spirit behind Rules 5 to 8 would amply demonstrate that the endeavour is to have closest proximity with the actual price. That is why Rules 5 to 8 are to be applied in a sequential manner, meaning thereby we have to first resort to Rule 5 and if that is not applicable only then we have to go to Rule 6 and in the case of inapplicability of Rule 6, we have to resort to Rule 7 and even if that is not applicable, then Rule 8 comes into play. In order to find out as to what would be the closest real value of the goods, Rule 5 mentions that transaction value of “identical goods” is to be taken into consideration. Thus, wherever the value of identical goods is available, one can safely rely upon the said value in the event transaction value of the goods in question is indeterminable. Value of the identical goods is most proximate. If that is also not available, next proximate value is provided in Rule 6 which talks of value of “similar goods”. In the absence thereof, we come to the formula of applying the

“Deductive value” as contained in Rule 7.   In those cases, where even deductive value cannot be arrived at, one has to resort to residual method provided in Rule 8 which prescribes that the value shall be determined using “reasonable means”.   This would indicate adopting “Best Judgment Assessment” principle.   However,   even   while   having   best   judgment assessments, Rule 8 reminds the authorities that such reasonable means or best judgment assessments has to be in consonance with the principles of general provisions contained in the Rules as well as sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act and also on the basis of data available in India.

The Hon’ble Court states that wherever actual cost of the goods or the services is available, that would be the determinative factor.   Only in the absence of actual cost, fictionalised cost is to be adopted. Here again, the scheme gives an ample message that an attempt is to arrive at value of goods or services as well as costs and services which bear almost near resemblance to the actual price of the goods or actual price of costs and services. That is why the sequence goes from the price of identical goods to similar goods and then to deductive value and the best judgment assessment, as a last resort.

The Hon’ble Court further stated that the impugned amendment dated 05.07.1990 has changed the entire basis of inclusion of loading, unloading and handling charges associated with the delivery of the imported goods at the place of importation. There is a complete deviation and departure insofar as loading, unloading and handling charges are concerned.   The proviso now stipulates 1% of the free on board value of the goods irrespective of the fact whether actual cost is ascertainable or not.

This proviso, introduces fiction as far as addition of cost of loading, unloading and handling charges is concerned even in those cases where actual cost paid on such an account is available and ascertainable. Obviously, it is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 and would clearly be ultravires this provision. The Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that when the actual charges paid are available and ascertainable, introducing a fiction for arriving at the purported cost of loading, unloading and handling charges is clearly arbitrary with no nexus with the objectives sought to be achieved. On the contrary, it goes against the objective behind Section 14 namely to accept the actual cost paid or payable and even in the absence thereof to arrive at the cost which is most proximate to the actual cost. Addition of 1% of free on board value is thus, in the circumstance, clearly arbitrary and irrational and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Hon’ble Court further refer to the judgment in Indian Acrylics v. Union of India and Anr.[2] and Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H.P.  wherein it was held that the rules made are protected by the limits prescribed by the parent act.

In view of the above it has been held that the impugned amendment, namely, proviso (ii) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 introduced vide Notification dated 05.07.1990 is unsustainable and bad in law as it exists in the present form and it has to be read down to mean that this clause would apply only when actual charges referred to in Clause (b) are not ascertainable and the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to cost.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Custom Duty

Posted Under

Category : Custom Duty (6952)
Type : Judiciary (11695)

0 responses to “Rules not within the limits of Parent Act are unsustainable and bad in law – SC”

  1. Manish says:

    What impact does this judgment will have in the context of Valuation Rules of 2007?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *