Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

D.N. Sethna Vs. Collector of Customs

D.N. Sethna vs Collector of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 05, 1994
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/8010

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

D.N. Sethna

Respondent

Collector of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1996)(85)ELT75TriDel

Excerpt

.....damaged at the time of import as it was observed by the lower authorities. since the car was one year old there was no reason restricting for only two quarters as it was rightly argued on behalf of the appellant. once depreciation is permissible it should be given to full year since the car was imported after one year from the date of purchase. the tribunal has been consistently held that 15% trade discount is permissible even in the case of individual who has purchased and brought into india following the earlier decisions.accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to 15% trade discount. section 14 of the customs act provides for the customs tariff act where a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be a price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation. such price shall be calculated with reference to rate of exchange as in force on the date on which the bill of entry is presented. hence the department was justified in including the freight charges. since the actual freight charges are available the department was not correct in adding the notional value in the absence of evidence brought on record to show that special concession was granted to the appellants. accordingly we hold that the car is to be re-assessed after allowing trade discount at 15% and depreciation for 4 quarters and further the actual freight charges incurred by the appellant is to be added to the cif value in arriving at the assessable value. this appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Full Judgment

1. The dispute is in respect of value of the imported car. The appellant imported M/Benz 190-1984 (Brand new) model car and filed a bill of entry for clearance of the said car. The value of the car was determined by the Assistant Collector based upon the manufacturer's invoice without allowing the depreciation on the ground that the car was brand new. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) observed that since the Assistant Collector has granted Rs. 8,500 as damage charges, the car was not new one since the date of registration was also on 9-2-1984 and accordingly, he allowed the depreciation but restricted to two quarter at the rate of 4%. The other claims were disallowed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence this appeal.

2. Ms. Khushnama D. Sethna, Daughter of the appellant appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the car was purchased on 9-2-1984 as can be seen from the document of the registration and the car was imported into India on 9-2-1985 and the car was not brand new since it was one year old and further it was damaged. The Collector (Appeals) was not right in allowing depreciation for two quarters as against full depreciation for a year and further the appellant is also entitled to 15% trade discount as it was held in the case of Dr. A.H.Rizvi v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1994 (74) E.L.T. 454 (Tribunal)] as well as in the case of B.J. Singh v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 474 (Tribunal). She said that actual freight charges incurred by the appellant in this case is 1478 DM and the same is to be added to the CIF value while arriving at the assessable value but the department erred in adding notional value 4450 DM as against 1478 DM.3. Sh. A.K. Singhal, learned JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that he has nothing to say either in trade discount or of depreciation allowance but the Department was just right in adding the correct freight charges because the freight charges shown in the invoice was concessional rate as it was rightly observed by the Collector (Appeals) in his order.

4. We have considered the rival submissions. It is well settled that the imported goods have to be assessed to duty in the condition in which they are imported. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the car was purchased on 9-2-1984 at West Germany and same was imported on 9-2-1985 and the car was damaged at the time of import as it was observed by the lower authorities. Since the car was one year old there was no reason restricting for only two quarters as it was rightly argued on behalf of the appellant. Once depreciation is permissible it should be given to full year since the car was imported after one year from the date of purchase. The Tribunal has been consistently held that 15% trade discount is permissible even in the case of individual who has purchased and brought into India following the earlier decisions.

Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to 15% trade discount. Section 14 of the Customs Act provides for the Customs Tariff Act where a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be a price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation. Such price shall be calculated with reference to rate of exchange as in force on the date on which the bill of entry is presented. Hence the Department was justified in including the freight charges. Since the actual freight charges are available the Department was not correct in adding the notional value in the absence of evidence brought on record to show that special concession was granted to the appellants. Accordingly we hold that the car is to be re-assessed after allowing trade discount at 15% and depreciation for 4 quarters and further the actual freight charges incurred by the appellant is to be added to the CIF value in arriving at the assessable value. This appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial