Back
1932 Supreme(SC) 25
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD BLANESBURGH, LORD TOMLIN, AND SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.
VACUUM OIL COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Bombay.
Decided On : Apr. 21. 1932.
Solicitors for appellants:Kerly, Sons & Karuth. Solicitor for respondent: Solicitor, India Office.
"Wholesale cash price" for customs valuation refers to prices in sales to the trade for resale, in contrast to retail prices. It excludes post-importation expenses and retail loading. If no such trade sales exist, the value must be determined by the cost of delivery.
Headnote:(A) Sea Customs Act, 1878 - Sections 29 and 30 - Determination of "real value" for customs duty - Interpretation of "wholesale cash-price" - Whether sales made directly to consumers in substantial quantities constitute "wholesale" sales - The term "wholesale cash-price" must be interpreted as a composite expression in contradistinction to "retail price" - The association with "trade discount" indicates that sales to the trade (intermediaries) are contemplated - The objective of the statutory definition is to determine a price free from post-importation charges and retail loading - Where goods are sold exclusively to consumers, a "wholesale cash-price" as defined in the Act does not exist, and the alternative basis of assessment based on delivery cost must be applied.
Facts of the case:
An importer of lubricating oils sold its products directly to consumers, bypassing dealers and retailers. The importer performed all retail functions, including warehousing, employing salesmen, and advertising, and the selling price included retail profits and post-importation expenses. The customs authorities sought to assess duty based on the "wholesale cash price" under the statute, whereas the importer contended that since no sales to the trade occurred, the value should be determined by the cost of delivery as the wholesale price was not ascertainable.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the price charged to consumers cannot be regarded as a "wholesale cash price" under the Act, nor is it possible to extract such a price from the available material. Consequently, the assessment must be based on the alternative method provided when the wholesale price is not ascertainable.
Issues: Whether the price charged by an importer who sells exclusively to consumers can be construed as the "wholesale cash price" for the purpose of assessing customs duty under the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
Ratio Decidendi: The expression "wholesale cash price" is a composite term where "wholesale" is used in contrast to "retail." The inclusion of "trade discount" further signifies that the legislature intended to refer to sales made to those in the trade for resale. This interpretation ensures the value is free from post-importation expenses and retail loading, which are necessarily charged to the consumer. If no such trade sales exist, the "wholesale cash price" is not ascertainable, necessitating the use of the alternative valuation method based on the cost at which goods of the like kind and quality could be delivered.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
customs law
-
customs duties
- valuation of goods
-
customs duties
-
statutory interpretation
- taxing statutes
Judgement
Appeal (No. 46 of 1931) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (August 5, 1930) reversing a decree of Blackwell J.
The litigation depended upon the proper basis upon which the appellants, as importers at Bombay of lubricating oil, were liable to be assessed to customs duties under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. They sued to recover a sum of Rs.9040, being the amount paid by them under protest in excess of what they contended was the duty payable, together with fines paid by them to avoid a confiscation of their goods ; they claimed further a declaration that the method of valuation adopted by the Collector of Customs was contrary to law.
The facts, and the material provisions of the Act, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The trial judge made a decree substantially as prayed.
An appeal, heard by Beaumont C.J. and Fisher J., was allowed and the suit dismissed. The appeal is reported at I. L. R. 55 B. 253. The grounds of the decision are stated shortly in the judgment here reported.
1932. Feb. 8, 9. Sir Albion Richardson K.C. and Wilfrid Barton for the appellants.
Dunne K.C. and S. J. Field for the respondent.
The arguments were as to the true meaning of s. 30 (a) of the Act, and as to the method in which the appellants business in the oil in question was conducted. For the appellants reference was made to observations of Lord Dunedin in Turpin v. Middlesbrough Assessment Committee ([ 1931] A. C. 446, 473, 487.); also to the Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. " wholesale," " retail." Vacuum Oil Co. v. Secretary of State for India (( 1921) I. L. R. 47 B. 174.) was referred to on behalf of the respondent.
April 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD BLANESBURGH. The appellants, an American company, with headquarters in New York, are engaged in the manufacture of various grades of oil used in the lubrication of machinery. One of their specialities is an oil known as " Mobiloil" specially manufactured for the lubricating of motor cars. Large quantities of " Mobiloil " are imported into India and are sold by the appellants to retailers in one gallon tins. No question, however, is in these proceedings raised as to any oils so imported and sold. They were the subject of another suit to be referred to later. This case is concerned only with the import duties on the appellants machinery lubricating oils, including incidentally " Mobiloil " in drums or barrels, which are imported into India through the Port of Bombay and are thereafter sold by the appellants direct to consumers. The dispute is as to the proper basis upon which these imported oils are assessable to duty under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Since such an issue must ultimately depend upon the true effect of that Act as applied to the oils in question, it will be convenient to set forth at once the material provisions of the sections in point. They are numbered 29 and 30, and are as follows
"Section 29. On the importation into .... any customs-port of any goods, whether liable to duty or not, the owner of such goods shall, in his bill-of-entry .... state the real value, quantity and description of such goods to the best of his knowledge and belief, and shall subscribe a declaration of the truth of such statement at the foot of such bill. In case of doubt, the Customs-collector may require any such owner or any other person in possession of any invoice, brokers note, policy of insurance or other document, whereby the real value, quantity or description of any such goods can be ascertained, to produce the same, and to furnish any information relating to such value, quantity or description which it is in his power to furnish. And thereupon such person shall produce such document and furnish such information. ....
Section 30 . For the purposes of this Act the real value shall be deemed to be—(a) the wholesale cash-price, less trade-discount, for which goods of the like kind and quality are sold, or are capable of being
