Page 200 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

534 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

“Urea” imported by them, should not be rejected under Rule 12 of Customs
Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-
determined as Rs. 63,68,08,88,946/- (Rupees Six Thousand Three Hundred
and Sixty Eight Crore Eight Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred
and Forty Six only), as detailed in Annexure-III to this Notice, under Sec-
tion 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Rule 4 of the Customs Valua-
tion (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007;
(ii) The 3032282.5 MTs goods i.e. “Urea” imported, as detailed in Annex-
ure III totally valued at Rs. 63,68,08,88,946/- should not be held liable for
confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962;
(iii) The differential Customs duty amounting to Rs. 7,64,84,141/- (Rupees
Seven Crore Sixty Four Lakh Eighty Four Thousand One Hundred Forty
One only) on import of Urea, for 57 finally assessed Bills of Entry as de-
tailed in the Annexure III to the show cause notice, should not be demand-
ed and recovered from them under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962;
(iv) The differential Customs duty amounting to Rs. 44,98,936/- (Rupees
Forty Four Lakh Ninety Eight Thousands Nine Hundred Thirty Six only)
on import of Urea, for 03 provisionally assessed Bills of Entry as detailed in
the Annexure III to the show cause notice, should not be demanded and re-
covered from them under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962/the bond
executed during the provisional assessment/Section 28 of the Customs Act,
1962;
(v) Interest should not be recovered from them on the said differential
Customs duty, as at (iii) above, under Section 28AA of the Customs Act,
1962;
(vi) Interest should not be recovered from them on the said differential
Customs duty, as at (iv) above, under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act,
1962;
(vii) Why the differential duty of Rs. 30,41,704/- and interest of
Rs. 9,37,680/- paid by the noticee in reference to Misc. Charges for the said
period should not be adjusted against the demand;
(viii) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the
Customs Act, 1962;
(ix) Penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114A of the
Customs Act, 1962.”
7. The Appellant filed a detailed reply dated 2 March, 2016 to the afore-
said show cause notice. It was pointed out that Rule 10(1)(e) of the 2007 Valua-
tion Rules would not be applicable since the Appellant was not paying any mis-
cellaneous or service charge of Rs. 17/- per MT to the Government of India, as it
was the Government of India which was paying this amount to the STE. It was
clarified that this charge of Rs 17/- per MT, which the STE was receiving from
the Government of India, was in the nature of “agency charges” which the STE
as an agent of the Government of India was getting for the services provided for
identifying and indenting the urea from foreign suppliers. It was also stated that
the ultimate import of urea takes place on behalf of the Government of India. It
was also mentioned that the Government of India was deducting 2% TDS while
making payment of miscellaneous charges to the STE, which could, in view of
provisions of the Income Tax Act, be deducted only on payment of commission
and not on sale. Thus, this amount could not be added to the transaction value.
The Appellant also pointed out that it had already paid Rs. 30,41,704/- by
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  200