Back
1999 Supreme(SC) 1310
(2010) 14 SCC 586
S.P. BHARUCHA AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.
VALDILAL DAIRY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY
Civil Appeals Nos. 10201-04 of 1996
Decided On : November 3, 1999
Headnote:Administration of Justice – Judicial propriety – Tribunal deploring use of depreciation method – Further holding that there had to be a finding that the invoice value was not the correct value – Finally itself not recording any finding about correctness or otherwise of invoice value and stating that "it would be reasonable to determine the value under Rule 8 of the Rules based on the depreciation method" – Order inconsistent – Not sustainable. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The appellants imported in 1994 six reconditioned used machines from West Germany for use in their dairy project under four bills of entry. The Assistant Collector determined the value of these machines by applying the depreciation method. His order was sustained by the Collector (Appeals).
The Tribunal, in the appeal preferred by the appellants, found the orders of authorities below to be unsustainable.
However, the Tribunal stated that "it would be reasonable to determine the value under Rule 8 of the Rules based on the depreciation method".
Finding of the Court:
For the purposes of assessment of customs duty, the assessable value shall be based on the invoice value of all the six imported machines.
Result:
The civil appeals are allowed.
ORDER
1. The appellants imported in 1994 six reconditioned used machines from West Germany for use in their dairy project under four bills of entry. The import documents included certificates of Chartered Engineers of West Germany. The Assistant Collector, however, determined the value of these machines by applying the depreciation method, relying upon Customs House practice and certain letters of the Ministry of Finance. His order was sustained by the Collector (Appeals).
2. The Tribunal, in the appeal preferred by the appellants, found the orders of authorities below to be unsustainable. It found that their orders showed that they had not applied their mind to the acceptability of the transaction value. The learned counsel for the appellant did not desire a remand but asked the Tribunal to arrive at the proper assessable value in the light of the materials on record. The Tribunal said, "(T)hough the lower authorities have not indicated it specifically, it appears to us that the difference between the two sets of values is so vast, in the absence of any explanation on the part of the appellant the genuineness of the declared value could not be accepted". This statement was made in regard to three of the six items of machinery imported and the reference was to the difference between the invoice value and the value as determined by the depreciation method.
3. It would appear that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that, in the first place, it had deplored the use of the depreciation method and in the second place, that it had stated, quite rightly, that there had to be a finding that the invoice value was not the correct value. This, the Tribunal did not find; it only stated that "it would be reasonable to determine the value under Rule 8 of the Rules based on the depreciation method". The order of the Tribunal, in our view, appears to be inconsistent and cannot be sustained.
4. The civil appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside.
For the purposes of assessment of customs duty, the assessable value shall be based on the invoice value of all the six imported machines. No order as to costs.
