Page 215 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] IFFCO LTD. v. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR 549

to such other conditions which can be specified in the form of Rules made
in this behalf.
(23) As per the first proviso of the amended Section 14(1), in the transac-
tion value of the imported goods, certain charges are to be added which are
in the form of amount paid or payable for costs and services including
commissions and brokerage, engineering, design work, royalties and li-
cence fees, costs of transportation to the place of importation, insurance,
loading, unloading and handling charges to the extent and in the manner
which can be prescribed in the rules. Sub-section (2) of Section 14, which
remains the same, is an over-riding provision which empowers the Board
to fix tariff values for any class of imported goods or export goods under
certain circumstances. We are not concerned with this aspect in the instant
case.”
43. Thus, what has to be seen under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act as
amended in 2007 is the transaction value of the goods imported or exported for
the purpose of Customs duty and transaction value is stated to be the price actu-
ally paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at
that time and place of importation. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 also makes it
clear that the price actually paid or payable for the goods will not be treated as
‘transactional value’ where the buyer and the seller are related to each other. As
per the first proviso to the amended Section 14(1), certain charges are to be added
in the transaction value of the imported goods.
44. It needs to be noted that the Circular dated 11th May, 2004 was is-
sued during the period the unamended Section 14 of the Customs Act was in
force. Thus, while there was scope for addition of notional charges in the assess-
able value under the unamended Section 14 of the Customs Act, but after the
actual sale price concept was introduced in the year 2007 on the basis of GATT
guidelines and Section 14 of the Customs Act was amended in 2007, any inclu-
sion of notional charges seems to have lost its relevance and only actual cost in-
curred by the buyer is required to be considered.
45. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid discussion that 2% Notional
High Sea Sale Commission could not have been added to the assessable value.
46. In this view of the matter, neither the amount of Rs. 17/- per MT
paid by the Government of India to the STE could have been added to the as-
sessable value on which the Appellant was required to pay duty, nor 2% Notion-
al High Seal Sale could have been added in the assessable value. The confirma-
tion of demand under these two heads, therefore, cannot be sustained. Such be-
ing the position, the order passed for confiscation of urea under Section 111(m)
of the Customs Act and the imposition of penalty are also liable to be set aside
and is set aside. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the contention raised by
the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the extended period of limitation
could not have been invoked in the fact and circumstances of the case.
47. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order dated 30 March
2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner is set aside and the Appeal is al-
lowed.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 24-2-2020)
_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  215