S.P. MEHTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI S.P. Mehta has filed Application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 1194/99A, dated 24 -8 -1999.

(2.) SHRI G.S. Chaman, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellate Tribunal while passing the Final Order No. 1194/99 -A, dated 24 -8 -1999 did not pass any order regarding payment of interest @ 18% P.A. on the refund amount which may be due to the Appellants as a results of the Tribunal's Order; that the Delhi High Court in Elephanta Oil and Vanaspati Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I, 1994 (73) E.L.T. 43(Del.)/ ordered payment of interest @ 17.5% P.A. on the amount from the date of deposit till it was refunded. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Swastic Metals v. U.O.I., 1990 (49) E.L.T. 45 (Raj). He further, submitted that had the amount been invested in the market or put in fixed deposit it would have by now multiplied; that the Customs Authorities also charge interest on delayed payment of duty and as such rule of reciprocity and justice demands that he should be paid interest on refund of excess duty charged from him. He also mentioned that the Tribunal made a serious error in law in ordering the sale price of the car in U.K. as the declared price in the country of manufacture (Japan); that transaction of the car from Japan to U.K. did involve the element of freight, marine insurance and handling charges and dealer's commission; that sale voucher clearly mentioned that freight marine insurance and documentation had been included in the sale price; that it is well settled law that sale price of goods in a third country cannot be treated as the FOB value in the country of manufacture and export of these goods. In support of the contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Unisef Electronics India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (49) E.L.T. 380 (T). He also relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Wipro Information Technology, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 343 (T) wherein it was held that for valuation (Customs), freight and insurance charges are deductible from the assessable value if these elements are included in the sale price. He finally referred to Rule 8(2)(iii) of Customs Valuation Rules which provides that no value shall be determined under the provision of this rule on the basis of the price of goods on the domestic market of the country of expertation because the domestic price is inclusive of the freight and handling charges and dealer's commission, etc.

(3.) MEETING the arguments, Shri S.P. Rao, learned D.R., submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record as the decision in Unisef Electronics India, Supra, was not cited before the Tribunal and as such there cannot be a mistake in not considering a ratio which was not relied upon by the Appellants. He, further, submitted that the interest on the amount of refund if any, will be payable as provided under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.