Home

About us

NIDB

ECDB

Valuation Law

Instructions

SVB

A.M. Ahmadi, CJI, S.C. Sen and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Versus

STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1995 of 1992, decided on 20-9-199⁵

Valuation (Customs) - Goods generally imported by sea but owing to urgent demand of goods imported by air - Sea freight for similar goods ascertainable - Value to be determined by inclusion of sea freight in the C.I.F. value - Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

REPRESENTED BY : M/s. N.K. Bajpai, P. Parmeswaran, V.K. Verma and G. Prakash, Advocates, for the Appellant.

M/s. Sushil Kumar Jain, Pradeep Aggarwal and S.D. Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent.

[Order]. - The question which the Tribunal was called upon to consider was whether in the case of goods imported by air, the air freight was required to be included for the assessment of customs duty under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 or whether sea freight alone could be added. The Tribunal noticed that it was not disputed that goods in question were regularly imported by sea. It was only by way of exception and that too on account of the urgent demand of tetracycline in the country that the consignment in question was air lifted instead of transporting by sea as was originally agreed upon because of the urgent requirement of the said medicine in India. The Tribunal having noticed that it was in the special circumstance that the goods which were originally planned to be brought by sea had to be air lifted it proceeded on the premise that ordinarily such goods were brought by sea and the value thereof had to be determined at the price at which such or like goods were ordinarily sold or offered for sale. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that they were ordinarily sold or offered for sale after including the sea freight and not air freight and on that finding of fact it came to the conclusion that the value of the goods had to be determined by adding sea freight and not air freight thereto. In the circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of fact on the basis of which the ultimate conclusion was reached. Hence, we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.

_______

Top

Vacancies

WTO Instruments

WCO Rulings

Val. Manual

CESTAT

S. C. Decisions

Related Links