LexM/S. M.S. SHOES EAST LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- MIS. M.S. SHOES EAST LTD. A v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, NEW DELHI APRIL 4, 2007 [S.B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] B ;>'- Customs Act, 1962; Ss. 2(4), 2(23), 2(26), 14, 15 and 46: >, Valuation-Import of Car-Valuation whether based on the price of the c car as declared at the time of import/presentation of bill of entry or on the date of assessment by authority-Held: In terms of provisions of the A~t. valuation of the imported goods has to be determined as on the date of presentation of bill of entry-Tribunal was right in holding that post-import depreciation cannot be taken into account and that the lapse of time he/ore assessment by the authorities and after the bill of entry filed, is irrelevant- D However, assessee could file a suit for damage against Revenue for causing f delay in giving clearance for the car. ,.. The question which arose for determination in this appeal was as to whether the assessable value of a 1993 model Rolls Royce car as imported by the appellant in 1996 has to be assessed based on the price declared in the E Bill of Entry of the car as filed at the customs barrier by the assessee on 31.8.1996 or as to whether depreciation should be allowed on the car for the purpose of valuation for the post import period. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. The Tribunal was right in holding that post import depreciation 't cannot be taken into account, despite the fact that while the Bill of Entry of the car was presented in 1996, the clearance was given on 18.3.1005. [Para 3) [793-B] l ~ Mis. Shah Devchand & Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., AIR G (1991) SC 1931, relied on. 1.1. Delay of nine years on the part of the authorities in releasing the ;r car from the date of import has no relevance at all as the value has to be 791 H i 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R. A determined under Section 14 of the Customs Act for delivery at the time and . ...- place of importation, which date is 31.8.1996. Hence, the Tribunal was right ~ in coming to the conclusion that the transaction value had to be declared by the appellant as on 31.8.1996, and the lapse of time before assessment by the authorities and after the Bill of Entry was filed is irrelevant. B [Para 4) [793-C) Bhara~ Surfactants Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union flf India and Ors., [1989) 3 SCR 367; Mis. Shah Devchand & Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., and Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. J.K Corporation., (2007) 2 SCALE >( 459, relied on. ,.. c 2.2. It is open to the appellant to file a suit for damages or seek other remedies against the respondents for the delay in giving the clearance for the car. [Para 9) [796-C) CIVILAPPELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4426 of2006. D From the Final Order No. 158/2006-Cus. dated 24.05.2006 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. Cus./895/ 2004. ~ .i.... J.S. Sinha, Braj Kishore Mishra, Apama Jha, Abhishek Yadav and Vikram E for the Appellant. A. Subba Rao and B.K. Prasad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order No. 158/06-Cus dated 24.5.~006 in Appeal No. Cus/895/ 2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delh,i. -t 2. The dispute in this case is about the assessable value of a 1993 model Rolls Royce car imported by the appellant in 1996. The Bill of Entry of the G car was filed at the customs barrier by the appellant on 31.8.1996. The dispute [ is about the question whether depreciation should be allowed on the car for the purpose of valuation for the post import period. 3. Under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the valuation of the car must be based on the price at the time of ~ ' >---- H the import of the goods. Section 15 of the Act makes it clear that the rate of M.S. SHOES EAST LTD. v. COMMNR OF CUSTOMS, !CD, NEW DELHI (MARKANDEY KATJU, J. ] 793 -.,.. duty and tariff valuation has to be detennined on the date on which the Bill A of Entry in respect of such goods is presented under Section 46 of the Act vide Mis. Shah Devchand & Co. and anr v. Union of India and anr., AIR ( 1991) SC 1931. Hence, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that post import depreciation cannot be taken into account, despite the fact that while the Bill of Entry of the c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.