Page 203 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] IFFCO LTD. v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR 537

pre-qualified Fertilizer Marketing Entities for marketing imported
urea in the country after receipt, handling, bagging and standardi-
sation at Indian ports;
(vi) Based on the rates quoted by IFFCO, the Department of Fertilizers
agreed to appoint IFFCO as a Fertilizer Marketing Entity at Pipavav
and New Mangalore Ports and an agreement dated 1st May, 2012
was entered into between the Government of India and IFFCO,
which agreement was to remain valid upto 13 March 2015, but
could be extended for further period of two years on the discretion
of the Department of Fertilizers;
(vii) As an example, if the STE purchases urea at the rate of US $ 300 per
MT from a foreign exporter, the Government of India pays US $ 300
per MT and Rs. 17/- per MT as miscellaneous charges to the STE.
The Appellant, however, pays the pool price of Rs. 5110/-, which
would be approximately US$ 83 to the Government of India. This is
the price at which the Appellant also sells urea to the farmers. The
balance amount is borne by the Government of India as subsidy to
the farmers. However, the Appellant pays duty on the price actually
paid by the STE to the foreign exporter;
(viii) The Appellant started including the miscellaneous charges of Rs.
17/- per MT as service charges in the Bills of Entry from 4th April
2015 in view of the communication dated 2nd February sent by the
Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs.
It also paid Rs. 30,41,704/- by challan dated 23rd May 2015 towards
miscellaneous charges of Rs. 17/- per MT for import of urea from
19th May, 2010 up to 18th May, 2015 with interest to the extent of
Rs. 9,37,680/- by challan dated 25th May, 2015. According to the
Appellant, this amount was paid purely as a commercial decision to
avoid litigation and should not be treated as an admission on the
part of the Appellant that it is liable to pay this charge.
14. The issues, therefore, that arise for consideration in this Appeal are
as follows :
(i) Whether for the purchase of urea by the Appellant from the Gov-
ernment of India on High Sea Sale, miscellaneous charges of Rs.
17/- per MT paid by the Government of India to STE is required to
be included in the assessable value and consequently duty payable
on it;
(ii) Whether in regard to the aforesaid purchase of urea by the Appel-
lant from the Government of India on High Sea Sale, notional 2%
High Sea Sale Commission is required to be included in the assessa-
ble value of goods and consequential duty is payable;
(iii) Whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked
in the facts and circumstances the case for both non-payment of
miscellaneous charges and notional High Sea Sale Commission;
(iv) Whether urea imported by the Appellant was liable for confiscation
under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act;
(v) Whether penalty could have been imposed on the Appellant under
Section 112(a) of the Customs Act; and

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  203