Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9766-9775 OF 2003
WIPRO LTD. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
& ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1950-1951 OF 2004
J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.
These appeals are preferred by the appellant challenging
the validity of judgment dated 11.10.2002 passed by the Division
JUDGMENT
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court
has, vide the said judgment, disposed of few writ petitions filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as certain writ
appeals which were filed against the orders of the single Judge.
All the aforesaid writ petitions and writ appeals were preferred by
the appellants herein.
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 1 of 37
Page 1
2) The subject matter of those writ petitions/writ appeals was the
constitutional validity of proviso (II-i) of Rule 9(2) of the Customs
Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the “Valuation Rules”). This proviso
has been inserted by Notification No.39/90 dated 05.07.1990
issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Union
of India. As per the appellant, this proviso is not only ultravires
Section 14(1) and Section 14(1-A) of the Customs Act, 1962
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') but is also violative of Article
14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The challenge,
however, stands repelled by the High Court in the impugned
judgment leading to dismissal of writ petitions and writ appeals.
This is how these appeals have come up in this Court, via special
leave petition route, in which leave was granted.
JUDGMENT
3) In order to understand the controversy, purpose would be served
in taking note of the facts from the Writ Appeal No.1079/2000
which was filed by the appellant in the High Court. The appellant
is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of Mini and Micro
Computer Systems and peripheral devices like printer, drivers etc.
It, inter alia, imported various components including software from
time to time. The appellant presented a Bill of Entry No.15020
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 2 of 37
Page 2
dated 15.04.1993. The chargeable weight of the consignment
was 315 kgs and the actual loading, unloading and handling
charges amounted to Rs.65.40 paisa as per the tariff of the
International Airport Authority of India, Madras (now Chennai).
However, the Customs Authorities, on the basis of the impugned
notification added a sum of Rs.15,214.69 paisa to the value of the
goods as handling charges as the impugned provision entitles the
authorities to add 1% of the F.O.B. value of goods on account of
loading, unloading and handling charges. The actual duty
charged, as a consequence of addition of the notional handling
charges, amounted to Rs.16,209.20 paisa instead of Rs.69.98
paisa.
4) At this juncture, instead of proceeding further with the factual
narration, we would like to deviate a bit and take note of the
JUDGMENT
relevant valuation rules and the amendments made therein from
time to time. These rules are made in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with
Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The purpose of
these rules is to arrive at the valuation of the imported goods to
enable the customs authorities to levy duty thereupon, on the
basis of the value so arrived at. Rule 2 is the “definition” clause
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 3 of 37
Page 3
whereunder certain terms are defined. Rule 2(f) defines
“transaction value” to mean the value determined in accordance
with Rule 4 of these Rules. This is to be read along with Rule 3.
We, therefore, reproduce Rule 3 and relevant portion of Rule 4
hereunder:
“3. Determination of the method of valuation-
For the purpose of these rules, -
(i) the value of imported goods shall be
the transaction value;
(ii) if the value cannot be determined
under the provisions of Clause (i) above,
the value shall be determined by
proceeding sequentially through Rules 5
to 8 of these rules.
4. Transaction Value – (1) The transaction
value of imported goods shall be the price
actually paid or payable for the goods when
sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules.
(2) The transaction value of imported goods
under sub-rule (1) above shall be accepted.
Provided that …......”
JUDGMENT
5) A conjoint reading of the aforesaid two provisions would make it
clear that the value of the imported goods has to be the
transaction value and in those cases where transaction value
cannot be determined, such a value is to be determined by
resorting to Rules 5 to 8 thereof in a sequential order. Therefore,
first attempt has to ascertain the transaction value. As per the
formula contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, the authorities are to
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 4 of 37
Page 4
find out the price actually paid or payable for the goods when
sold for exports to India, to arrive at the value of the goods. Once
this value is arrived at, it is to be adjusted in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 9 of the said Rules. The final outcome, after
such an adjustment made, is to be treated as transaction value to
attract the import duty thereupon. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 4,
the transaction value of the imported goods under sub-rule (1) is
to be accepted, except in certain circumstances mentioned in
proviso to sub-rule (2). If any of those circumstances exists, then
the value is to be determined as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 4.
However, we are not concerned with such a situation in the
present case.
6) Thus, normally, the value of imported goods has to be the
JUDGMENT
transactional value which means the price “actually paid” or
“payable” for the goods imported. Moreover, the value as
specified in sub-rule (1) is to be generally accepted with the
exception of certain contingencies stipulated in proviso to sub-rule
(2) of Rule 4. Only when such a value cannot be determined, one
has to resort to Rules 5 to 8, in a sequential manner which would
mean that the authorities would first refer to Rule 5 and in case it
is inapplicable, then Rule 6 and so on. As per Rule 5, in those
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 5 of 37
Page 5
cases where the transaction value is indeterminable, transaction
value of “identical goods” is to be taken into consideration. Rule 6
mentions about transaction value of “similar goods”. If this also
inapplicable then “deductive value” is to be arrived at in terms of
formula contained in Rule 7. If that is also inapplicable, residual
method is provided in Rule 8 which prescribes that the value shall
be determined using “reasonable means” consistent with the
principles of general provisions of these Rules and sub-section (1)
of Section 14 of the Customs Act and on the basis of data
available in India. At the same time, sub-rule (2) of Rule 8
excludes certain methods which are not to be applied to
determine the value under these Rules. Precise language of sub-
rule (2) of Rule 8 is reproduce as under:
“2. No value shall be determined under the
provisions of these rules on the basis of -
(i) the selling price in India of the goods
produced in India;
(ii) a system which provides for the
acceptance for customs purposes of the highest
of the two alternative values;
JUDGMENT
(iii) the price of the goods on the domestic
market of the country of exportation;
(iv) the price of the goods for the export to a
country other than India;
(v) minimum customs values; or
(vi) arbitrary or fictitious values.”
7) Once the transaction value is arrived at by applying the formula
applicable in a given case in terms of aforesaid provision,
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 6 of 37
Page 6
exercise is still incomplete. Adjustments to this value are still to
be made in accordance with the provision of Rule 9. Only
thereafter, exact “transaction value” gets determined on which
customs duty is to be paid. It is so stated in Rule 4 itself. So, at
this stage, Rule 9 comes into play, with which we are concerned
in the present case. It deals with “cost of services”. It lays down
that in determining the transactional value, cost of certain services
is to be added to the price actually paid or payable for the
imported goods, as mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-rule (1)
of Rule 9. We would like to reproduce this Rule, as it originally
stood, in its entirety:
“9. Cost of services – (1) In determining the
transaction value, there shall be added to the
price actually paid or payable for the imported
goods, -
(a) the following cost and services, to the
extent they are incurred by the buyer but are
not included in the price actually paid or
payable for the imported goods , namely -
(i) commissions and brokerage, except buying
commissions;
(ii) the cost of containers which are treated as
being one for customs purposes with the goods
in question;
(iii) the cost of packing whether for labour or
materials;
(b) the value, apportioned as appropriate, of the
following goods and services where supplied
directly or indirectly by the buyer free of charge
or at reduced cost for use in connection with the
production and sale for export of imported
goods, to the extent that such value has not
been included in the price actually paid or
payable, namely:-
JUDGMENT
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 7 of 37
Page 7
(i) materials, components, parts and similar
items incorporated in the imported goods;
(ii) tools, dies, moulds and similar items used in
the production of the imported goods;
(iii) materials consumed in the production of the
imported goods;
(iv) engineering, development, art work, design
work, and plans and sketches undertaken
elsewhere than in India and necessary for the
production of the imported goods;
(c) royalties and licence fees related to the
imported goods that the buyer is required to pay,
directly or indirectly, as a condition of the sale of
the goods being valued, to the extent that such
royalties and fees are not included in the price
actually paid or payable.
(d) the value of any part of the proceeds of any
subsequent resale, disposal, or use of the
imported goods that accrues, directly or
indirectly, to the seller;
(e) all other payments actually made or to be
made as a condition of sale of the imported
goods , by the buyer to the seller, or by the
buyer to a third party to satisfy an obligation of
the seller to the extent that such payments are
not included in the price actually paid or
payable.
2. For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-
section (1A) of Section 14 of the Customs Act,
1962 (52 of 1962) and these rules, the value of
the imported goods shall be the value of such
goods, for delivery at the time and place of
importation and shall include -
(a) the cost of transport of the imported goods
to the place of importation;
(b) loading, unloading and handling charges
associated with the delivery of the imported
goods at the place of importation; and
(c) the cost of insurance :
JUDGMENT
Provided that in the case of goods
imported by air, the cost and charges referred to
in clauses (a), (b) and (c) above,-
(i) where such cost and charges are
ascertainable, shall not exceed twenty per cent
of the free on board value of such goods,
(ii) where such cost and charges are not
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 8 of 37
Page 8
ascertainable such cost and charges shall be
twenty per cent of the free on board value of
such goods;
Provided further that in the case of goods
imported other than by air and the actual cost
and charges referred to in clauses (a), (b) and
(c) above are not ascertainable, such cost
and charges shall be twenty-five per cent of
the free on board value of such goods.
(3) Additions to the price actually paid or
payable shall be made under this rule on the
basis of objective and quantifiable data.
(4) No addition shall be made to the price
actually paid or payable in determining the value
of the imported goods except as provided for in
this rule.”
8) Rule 9 was amended in the year 1989 vide Notification dated
19.12.1989. With this amendment, the provisos appearing below
sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 were substituted with the following proviso:
“Provided that -
(i) Where the cost mentioned in clause (a) are
not ascertainable, such cost shall be twenty per
cent of the free on board value of the goods;
(ii) Where the charges mentioned at clause (b)
are not ascertainable, such charges shall be one
per cent of the free on board value of the goods;
(iii) Where the cost mentioned at clause (c) are
not ascertainable, such cost shall be 1.125% of
free on board value of the goods.
Provided further that in the case of goods
imported by air, where the cost mentioned in
clause (a) are ascertainable, such cost shall not
exceed twenty per cent of free on board value of
the goods.”
JUDGMENT
9) In the year 1990 i.e. vide amendment Notification dated
05.07.1990, the said provisos underwent further modification with
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 9 of 37
Page 9
the substitution of following provisos:
“Provided that -
(i) Where the cost of transport referred to in
clause (a) is not ascertainable, such cost shall be
twenty per cent of the free on board value of the
goods;
(ii) the charges referred to in clause (b) shall
be one per cent of the free on board value of
the goods plus the cost of transport refered
to in clause (a) plus the cost of insurance
referred to in clause (c) ;
(iii) Where the cost referred to in clause (c) is not
ascertainable, such cost shall be 1.125% of free
on board value of the goods;
Provided further that in the case of goods
imported by air, where th cost referred to in
clause (a) is ascertainable, such cost shall not
exceed twenty per cent of free on board value of
the goods;
Provided also that where the free on board value
of the goods is not ascertainable, the costs
referred to in clause (a) shall be twenty per cent
of the free on board value of the goods plus cost
of insurance for clause (I) above and the cost
referred to in clause (c) shall be 1.125% of the
free on board value of the goods plus cost of
transport for clause (iii) above.”
JUDGMENT
10) Clause (ii) of first proviso, as is clear from reading thereof,
mandated addition of one per cent of the free on board value of
the goods plus the cost of transport referred to in clause (a) plus
the cost of insurance referred to in clause (c).
11) Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is on the strength of
this proviso, even when the actual handling charges were shown
as Rs.69.98 paisa, that too as fixed by the International Airport
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 10 of 37
Page 10
Authority, the customs authorities added further sum of
Rs.15,214.69 paisa to the value of goods of handling charges,
being one per cent free on board value of the goods. Obviously,
the appellant was aggrieved by this addition and handling charges
on notional basis pursuant to the aforesaid proviso whereby the
charges for loading, unloading and handling associated with the
delivery of imported goods at the place of importation had been
fixed at one per cent free on board value of the goods plus the
cost of the transport of the imported goods to the place of
importation plus cost of insurance.
12) This became the reason for filing the writ petition in the High
Court to question the validity of the said proviso by way of
impugned amendment. In brief, the case set up by the appellant
was that such a notional fixation of the handling charges with the
JUDGMENT
addition of one per cent of free on board value of the value of
goods, irrespective of the nature of goods, size of the cargo, was
in total disregard to the total handling charges, even when such
actual handling charges could be ascertained. It was also the
submission of the appellant that the said one per cent so fixed
without reference to the nature of the goods, size of the cargo and
value of the goods is irrational, in the sense, high value items like
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 11 of 37
Page 11
components of computer, involving little or no expenses by way of
handling, whereas heavy weight items like machinery, hardware
might involve substantial expenditure for loading, unloading and
handling. It was submitted that the handling services are
rendered by the sea port and airport authorities. The handling
charges are levied on the basis of either the gross weight or
chargeable weight, whichever is higher. Both these weights are
incidentally available in the air bill accompanying the
consignment. The international Airport Authorities and the port
trust are having schedule of tariff and the appellant have from
time to time been paying the handling charges to the authorities
as per the tariff. On this basis, it was argued that such an
addition was totally irrational and arbitrary, thus violative of Article
14 of the Constitution and was also ultravires Section 14(1) and
JUDGMENT
Section 14(1)(A) of the Customs Act.
13) The respondents defended the aforesaid amendment by pointing
out that over last number of years, it was found impossible to
ascertain the actual amounts incurred towards loading, unloading
and handling charges while making the assessment as they
varied depending upon the quantities and place of import.
Finding this difficulty in actual practice and in order to achieve
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 12 of 37
Page 12
certainty, one per cent of the F.O.B. value was fixed to be
included in the assessable value. It was argued that once this
uniformity is achieved with the aforesaid provisions, merely
because some would be getting the benefit while others would
suffer certain detriment, is no reason for invalidating the provision
when many others would be getting the benefit thereof as well.
The percentage had been fixed by the rule making authority after
taken into consideration the overall picture.
14) The High Court, in the impugned judgment, after referring to
various decisions of this Court, accepted the plea of the
Government holding that rule making authority had the requisite
power to make a provision of this nature by including landing
charges for the purpose of valuation as valuation on such a basis
was held to be valid by this Court in Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v.
JUDGMENT
1
Union of India . The justification for adding one per cent of
F.O.B. value in determination handling charges can be discerned
from paras 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment which read as
under:
“17. We are not able to uphold the contents of
the learned counsel for the petitioner for the
reason that prior to the impugned notification,
the same one percent of F.O.B. value was taken
by the authorities as loading, unloading and
1 (1998) 8 SCC 744
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 13 of 37
Page 13
handling charges for determination of the
assessable value of the goods, when the actuals
are not assessable. Even prior to that, 3/4th of
the F.O.B. value has been added to the value of
the goods as loading, unloading and handling
charges for the purpose of assessment pursuant
to the GATT agreement. The one per cent
F.O.B. value would be very nominal to the
importers and that the percentage has been
fixed on the basis of objective and
quantifiable data taking onto consideration of
the experience gained by the authorities and
the difficulties in ascertaining the actuals.
18. The method of collection or the manner of
collection may be prescribed either under the Act
or under the rules framed by the delegated
authority. In the case on hand, instead of
actuals, rules have prescribed a fixed
percentage which in some cases may be too
harsh where the value of the goods imported is
much more and the weight of the commodity is
less. There may be number of other items
where the value of the imported goods are less
and weight of the commodity is very much. The
machinery provision so provided for collection of
duty, taking into consideration the administrative
convenience cannot be considered beyond the
scope of the rule making power and it cannot be
said to be levying duty on amount which is not
within the purview of the Customs Act or Section
14(1) simply because the rule making authority
have prescribed a fixed percentage based on
experience instead of actual.
JUDGMENT
Section 14 of the Customs Act itself made
it clear the value of such imported goods shall be
deemed to be the price at which such goods are
ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at
the time and place of importation or exportation
in the course of international trade and the price
referred to shall be determined in accordance
with the rule made in this behalf. For the
purpose of determination of the value, rules have
been made and taking into consideration the
difficulties experienced in the past in fixing the
handling charges on the actuals, it is fixed at one
percent of the CIF value of the goods. When the
statute confers the power to make rules for
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 14 of 37
Page 14
determination of the value, such determination of
the value by imposition of the same as a
percentage cannot at any stretch of imagination
be considered as repugant to Section 14(1) or
discriminatory.”
15) The High Court in support of the aforesaid view, referred to
certain judgments of this Court touching upon the principle that
when a power is conferred on the Legislature to levy a tax, that
power itself must be widely construed. Reliance upon the
judgment in Garden Silk Mills is placed by the High Court in the
following manner:
“19. The Supreme Court in Garden Silk Mills
Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 2000
Supreme Court 33 has observed that Section 14
is a deeming provision. The legislative intent is
clear that the actual price of imported goods viz.,
the landing costs cannot alone be regarded as
the value for the purpose of calculating the duty.
The language of Section 14 clearly indicates that
though the transaction value may be relevant
consideration, the value for the purpose of
custom duty will have to be determined by the
customs authority, which value can be more and
at times even less than what is indicated in the
document of purchase or sale.”
JUDGMENT
16) Questioning the correctness of the aforesaid view taken by the
High Court, Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant in all these appeals, submitted that prior to the
impugned notification dated 05.07.1990, the Rule in this regard
was to the effect that the handling charges were reckoned on the
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 15 of 37
Page 15
actuals and only where the actual cost could not be ascertained,
one per cent of the F.O.B. of the goods was to be added as
charges on this account. However, with the impugned
amendment in the Rules, the actual cost incurred and or
ascertainable is totally ignored in the matter of “handling charges”
and is to be arrived at fictionally by adding one per cent of the
F.O.B. value of the imported goods and its transportation and
insurance charges. It was pointed out that the appellant is
engaged in the manufacture and marketing of computer systems
and peripherals, and in the course of its business, imports various
components worth crores of rupees, which are of high value but of
low weight and dimensions. Further, the actual cost incurred
towards the handling charges in accordance with the prescribed
charges by the international Airport Authority of India was not
JUDGMENT
even a fraction of the “notional handling charges” arrived at by
applying the formula contained in the amended Rule. In nutshell,
it was pointed out that in the present case, where actual cost
could be ascertained, the same had to be taken into consideration
to determine the valuation of the goods for the purpose of custom
duty and it is only in those cases where actual cost could not be
arrived at the fictional formula should be made applicable.
Making such a provision, it was argued, even where the actual
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 16 of 37
Page 16
cost was known was clearly ultravires Section 14(1) and Section
14(1A) of the Customs Act. It was also argued that there was no
rationale in adding one per cent of the F.O.B. value in such cases
and this smacked of arbitrariness making it violative of Article 14
of the Constitution as well. Mr. Dave also referred and relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Indian Acrylics v. Union of
2
India and Anr. in support of his aforesaid submissions. He also
referred to the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) which inter alia laid down the
yardsticks/methodology for arriving at cost of transport and the
prescription therein is the actual cost of transport of the imported
goods to the port or place of importation plus the handling
charges and cost of insurance.
17) Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
JUDGMENT
respondents, on the other hand, defended the judgment by
adopting the reasoning given by the High Court sustaining the
validity of the impugned provision.
18) We have given our due consideration to the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties with reference to the material on
record as well as various statutory and other provisions, placed at
2 (2000) 2 SCC 678
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 17 of 37
Page 17
our disposal.
19) In order to arrive at the answer to the issue raised, we shall have
to go through the scheme of customs duties as payable under the
Act. Chapter V is the relevant chapter which deals with “Levy of,
and Exemption from, Customs Duties”. It contains the provisions
from Section 12 to Section 28BA. Section 12 which talks of
“dutiable goods”, provides that duties of customs shall be levied at
such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act,
1975, or any other law for the time being in force, on goods
imported into, or exported from, India. Thus, the rates at which
the customs duties is to be imposed are specified in the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975. That rate is on the value of goods imported or
exported, as the case may be. Therefore, there is a need to
determine the value of the goods imported and exported. The
JUDGMENT
yardsticks for arriving at this value are contained in Section 14 of
the Act. This provision as originally stood and was prevalent at
the relevant time with which we are concerned, reads as under:
“14. Valuation of goods for purposes of
assessment.- (1) For the purposes of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any
other law for the time being in force whereunder
a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods
by reference to their value, the value of such
goods shall be deemed to be-
the price at which such or like goods are
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 18 of 37
Page 18
ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at
the time and place of importation or exportation,
as the case may be, in the course of
international trade, where-
(a) the seller and the buyer have no interest in
the business of each other; or
(b) one of them has no interest in the business
of the other, and the price is the sole
consideration for the sale or ofer for sale:
Provided that such price shall be
calculated with reference to the rate of exchange
as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is
presented under section 46, or a shipping bill or
bill of export, as the case may be, is presented
under section 50;
(1A) Subject to the provisions of sub-
section (1), the price referred to in that sub-
section in respect of imported goods shall be
determined in accordance with the rules made in
this behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) if the Board
is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to
do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
fix tariff values for any class of imported goods
or export goods, having regard to the trend of
value of such or like goods, and where any such
tariff values are fixed, the duty shall be
chargeable with reference to such tariff value.
(3) For the purposes of this section-
JUDGMENT
(a) “rate of exchange” means the rate of
exchange-
(i) determined by the Board, or
(ii) ascertained in such manner as the
Board may direct, for the conversion of
Indian currency into foreign currency
or foreign currency into Indian
currency;
(b) “foreign currency” and “Indian currency”
have the meanings respectively assigned to
them in clause (m) and clause (q) of section
2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act,
1999 (42 of 1999).”
20) This provision was amended in the year 2007. Though, we are
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 19 of 37
Page 19
not concerned with this amended provision, we are taking note of
the same in order to examine as to whether any change, in
principle, is brought about or not. The amended provision reads
as follows:
“14. Valuation of goods.- (1) For the purposes of
the the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or
any other law for the time being in force, the
value of the imported goods and export goods
shall be the transaction value of such goods,
that is to say, the price actually paid or payable
for the goods when sold for export to India for
delivery at the time and place of importation, or
as the case may be, for export from India for
delivery at the time and place of exportation,
where the buyer and seller of the goods are not
related and price is the sole consideration for the
sale subject to such other conditions as may be
specified in the rules made in this behalf:
Provided that such transaction value in the
case of imported goods shall include, in addition
to the price as aforesaid, any amount paid or
payable for costs and services, including
commissions and brokerage, engineering,
design work, royalties and licence fees, costs of
transportation to the place of importation,
insurance, loading, unloading and handling
charges to the extent and in the manner
specified in the rules made in this behalf:
JUDGMENT
Provided further that the rules made in this
behalf may provide for,-
(i) the circumstances in which the buyer and
the seller shall be deemed to be related;
(ii) the manner of determination of value in
respect of goods when there is no sale, or
the buyer and the seller are related, or
price is not the sole consideration for the
sale or in any other case;
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 20 of 37
Page 20
(iii) the manner of acceptance or rejection of
value declared by the importer or exporter,
as the case may be, where the proper
officer has reason to doubt the truth or
accuracy of such value, and determination
of value for the purposes of this section:
Provided also that such price shall be
calculated with reference to the rate of exchange
as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is
presented under section 46, or a shipping bill of
export, as the case may be, is presented under
section 50.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), if the Board is satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, fix tariff values
for any class of imported goods or export goods,
having regard to the trend of value of such or
like goods, and where any such tariff values are
fixed, the duty shall be chargeable with
reference to such tariff value.”
21) A reading of the unamended provision would show that the
earlier/old principle was to find the valuation of goods “by
reference to their value”. It introduced a deeming/fictional
JUDGMENT
provision by stipulating that the value of the goods would be the
price at which such or like goods are “ordinarily sold, or offered for
sale”. Under the new provision, however, the valuation is based
on the transaction price namely, the price “actually paid or
payable for the goods”. Even when the old provision provided the
formula of the price at which the goods are ordinarily sold or
offered for sale, at that time also if the goods in question were
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 21 of 37
Page 21
sold for a particular price, that could be taken into consideration
for arriving at the valuation of goods. The very expression
“ordinarily sold, or offered for sale” would indicate that the price at
which these goods are actually sold would be the price at which
they are ordinarily sold or offered for sale. Of course, under the
old provision, under certain circumstances, the authorities could
discard the price mentioned in the invoice. However, that is only
when it is found that the price mentioned in the invoice is not the
reflection of the price at which these are ordinarily sold or offered
for sale. To put it otherwise, the reason for discarding the price
mentioned in the invoice could be only when the said price
appeared to be suppressed one. In such a case, the authorities
could say that generally such goods are ordinarily sold or offered
for sale at a different price and take that price into consideration
JUDGMENT
for the purpose of levying the duty. It could, however, be done
only if there was evidence to show that ordinarily the price at
which these goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale is higher
than the price mentioned in the invoice. In fact, this fundamental
concept is retained even now while introducing the concept of
“transaction value” under the amended provision. More
importantly, the rules viz. Valuation Rules, 1988 had incorporated
this very principle of “transaction value” even under the old
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 22 of 37
Page 22
provision. No doubt, as per this provision existing today generally
the price mentioned is to be accepted as it is the transaction
value. However, this very provision stipulates the circumstances
under which that price can be discarded. In any case, having
regard to the question with which we are concerned in the present
appeals, such a change in the provision may not have much
effect.
22) The underlying principle contained in amended sub-section (1) of
Section 14 is to consider transaction value of the goods imported
or exported for the purpose of customs duty. Transaction value is
stated to be a price actually paid or payable for the goods when
sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of
importation. Therefore, it is the price which is actually paid or
payable for delivery at the time and place of importation, which is
JUDGMENT
to be treated as transaction value. However, this sub-section (1)
further makes it clear that the price actually paid or payable for
the goods will not be treated as transaction value where the buyer
and the seller are related with each other. In such cases, there
can be a presumption that the actual price which is paid or
payable for such goods is not the true reflection of the value of the
goods. This Section also provides that normal price would be the
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 23 of 37
Page 23
sole consideration for the sale. However, this may be subject to
such other conditions which can be specified in the form of Rules
made in this behalf.
23) As per the first proviso of the amended Section 14(1), in the
transaction value of the imported goods, certain charges are to be
added which are in the form of amount paid or payable for costs
and services including commissions and brokerage, engineering,
design work, royalties and licence fees, costs of transportation to
the place of importation, insurance, loading, unloading and
handling charges to the extent and in the manner which can be
prescribed in the rules. Sub-section (2) of Section 14, which
remains the same, is an over-riding provision which empowers
the Board to fix tariff values for any class of imported goods or
export goods under certain circumstances. We are not concerned
JUDGMENT
with this aspect in the instant case.
24) In contrast, in the unamended Section 14, we had provision like
sub-section (1A) which stipulated that the price referred to in sub-
section (1) in respect of imported goods shall be determined in
accordance with rules made in this behalf. Therefore, rules can
be made in determining the price. However, these rules have to
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 24 of 37
Page 24
be subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the underline
principle whereof, as stated above, is to taken into consideration
actual price of the goods unless it is impermissible because of
certain circumstances stipulated therein. Keeping in mind this
fundamental aspect, we have to examine the scheme of the
Valuation Rules, 1988.
25) It can very well be seen from the Valuation Rules, 1988 that these
Rules are made to facilitate arriving at the valuation of goods in all
the contingencies provided in sub-section (1) of Section 14. We
have already reproduced the relevant Rules and indicated the
scheme thereof. To recapitulate in brief, Rule 3 echoes the
principle enshrined in sub-section (1) of Section 14 by mentioning
3
that value of the imported goods would be the transaction value .
Likewise, Rule 4 again reproduces the concept behind sub-
JUDGMENT
section (1) of Section 14 by stipulating in no uncertain terms, that
the transaction value shall be the price actually paid or payable
for the goods when sold for exports to India. The adjustments
which are made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 are
nothing but the costs and services, as specified in first proviso to
3 It is interesting to note, which is somewhat strange, that though concept of transaction value
was introduced in sub-section (1) of Section 14 by amendment in the year 2007, which before
that in the Valuation Rules, 1988, the expression “transaction value” is incorporated. This also
lends credence to our observations that the concept of unamended provision was also to arrive
at to take into consideration the actual value wherever it was available and was not excluded by
any of the circumstances mentioned therein.
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 25 of 37
Page 25
Section 14(1) of the Act. It is only in those cases where value of
the imported goods i.e. transaction value cannot be determined,
that we have to resort to Rules 5 to 8 of the said Rules. The
purpose of these Rules is to fix the transaction value of the goods
notionally. However, even when the fiction is applied, the scheme
and spirit behind Rules 5 to 8 would amply demonstrate that the
endeavour is to have closest proximity with the actual price. That
is why Rules 5 to 8 are to be applied in a sequential manner,
meaning thereby we have to first resort to Rule 5 and if that is not
applicable only then we have to go to Rule 6 and in the case of
inapplicability of Rule 6, we have to resort to Rule 7 and even if
that is not applicable, then Rule 8 comes into play. In order to find
out as to what would be the closest real value of the goods, Rule
5 mentions that transaction value of “identical goods” is to be
JUDGMENT
taken into consideration. Thus, wherever the value of identical
goods is available, one can safely rely upon the said value in the
event transaction value of the goods in question is
indeterminable. Value of the identical goods is most proximate. If
that is also not available, next proximate value is provided in Rule
6 which talks of value of “similar goods”. In the absence thereof,
we come to the formula of applying the “deductive value” as
contained in Rule 7. In those cases, where even deductive value
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 26 of 37
Page 26
cannot be arrived at, one has to resort to residual method
provided in Rule 8 which prescribes that the value shall be
determined using “reasonable means”. This would indicate
adopting “Best Judgment Assessment” principle. However, even
while having best judgment assessments, Rule 8 reminds the
authorities that such reasonable means or best judgment
assessments has to be in consonance with the principles of
general provisions contained in the Rules as well as sub-section
(1) of Section 14 of the Act and also on the basis of data available
in India.
26) On the aforesaid examination of the scheme contained in the Act
as well as in the Rules to arrive at the valuation of the goods, it
becomes clear that wherever actual cost of the goods or the
services is available, that would be the determinative factor. Only
JUDGMENT
in the absence of actual cost, fictionalised cost is to be adopted.
Here again, the scheme gives an ample message that an attempt
is to arrive at value of goods or services as well as costs and
services which bear almost near resemblance to the actual price
of the goods or actual price of costs and services. That is why the
sequence goes from the price of identical goods to similar goods
and then to deductive value and the best judgment assessment,
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 27 of 37
Page 27
as a last resort.
27) In the present case, we are concerned with the amount payable
for costs and services. Rule 9 which is incorporated in the
Valuation Rules and pertains to costs and services also contains
the underlying principle which runs though in the length and
breadth of the scheme so eloquently. It categorically mentions
the exact nature of those costs and services which have to be
included like commission and brokerage, costs of containers, cost
of packing for labour or material etc. Significantly, Clause (a) of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 which specifies the aforesaid heads, cost
whereof is to be added to the price, again mandates that it is to be
“to the extent they are incurred by the buyer”. That would clearly
mean the actual cost incurred. Likewise, Clause (e) of sub-rule
(1) of Rule 9 which deals with other payments again uses the
JUDGMENT
expression “all other payments actually made or to be made as
the condition of the sale of imported goods”.
28) Keeping in mind this perspective, we need to look into clause (b)
of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 which deals with loading, unloading and
handling charges associated with the delivery of imported goods
at the place of importation, which are to be included to arrive at
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 28 of 37
Page 28
the value of such imported goods. It is these charges with which
we are directly concerned with in the instant case.
29) The provision of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, as originally stood, made it
clear that wherever loading, unloading and handling charges are
ascertainable i.e. actually paid or payable, it is those charges that
would be added. Proviso to the said Rule contained the provision
that only in the event the same are not ascertainable, it shall be
25% of the free on board value of such goods. In fact, sub-rule
(3) of Rule 9 leave no manner of doubt when it mentions that
additions are to be made on the basis of objective and
quantifiable data.
30) It would be pertinent to mention here that sub-rule (2) talks of
three kinds of charges. Apart from loading, unloading and
JUDGMENT
handling charges which are mentioned in Clause (b), Clause (a)
deal with cost of transport of imported goods to the place of
importation and Clause (c) dealt with cost of insurance. All these
costs were to be included on actual basis. Only when such costs
were not ascertainable, proviso got attracted which stipulated that
such costs and charges shall be 25% of the free on board value
of such goods. Even when the aforesaid proviso was amended
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 29 of 37
Page 29
vide notification dated 19.12.1989, the spirit behind the
unamended proviso was maintained and kept intact. Only
difference was that instead of addition of 25% of free on board
value of goods in respect of all the three kinds of charges, under
the amended proviso, this percentage fixed was different in
respect of each of the aforesaid charges. As far as cost of
transport is concerned, it was changed at 20% of the free on
board value of goods. Insofar as loading, unloading and handling
charges are concerned, it was reduced to 1% of the free on board
value of goods and in case of insurance charges, the amended
provision provided for such cost at 1.125% free on board value of
goods. However, as mentioned above, the spirit behind this
proviso continued to be the same viz. the proviso was to made
applicable only when the actual cost was indeterminable.
JUDGMENT
31) In contrast, however, the impugned amendment dated 05.07.1990
has changed the entire basis of inclusion of loading, unloading
and handling charges associated with the delivery of the imported
goods at the place of importation. Whereas fundamental principle
or basis remains unaltered insofar as other two costs, viz., the
cost of transportation and the cost of insurance stipulated in
clauses (a) and (c) of sub-rule (2) are concerned. In respect of
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 30 of 37
Page 30
these two costs, provision is retained by specifying that they
would be applicable only if the actual cost is not ascertainable. In
contrast, there is a complete deviation and departure insofar as
loading, unloading and handling charges are concerned. The
proviso now stipulates 1% of the free on board value of the goods
irrespective of the fact whether actual cost is ascertainable or not.
Having referred to the scheme of Section 14 of the Rules in detail
above, this cannot be countenanced. This proviso, introduces
fiction as far as addition of cost of loading, unloading and handling
charges is concerned even in those cases where actual cost paid
on such an account is available and ascertainable. Obviously, it
is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 and would clearly be
ultravires this provision. We are also of the opinion that when the
actual charges paid are available and ascertainable, introducing a
JUDGMENT
fiction for arriving at the purported cost of loading, unloading and
handling charges is clearly arbitrary with no nexus with the
objectives sought to be achieved. On the contrary, it goes against
the objective behind Section 14 namely to accept the actual cost
paid or payable and even in the absence thereof to arrive at the
cost which is most proximate to the actual cost. Addition of 1% of
free on board value is thus, in the circumstance, clearly arbitrary
and irrational and would be violative of Article 14 of the
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 31 of 37
Page 31
Constitution.
32) We find that the High Court, instead of examining the matter from
the aforesaid angle, has simply gone by the powers of the rule
making authority to make Rules. No doubt, rule making authority
has the power to make Rules but such power has to be exercised
by making the rules which are consistent with the scheme of the
Act and not repugnant to the main provisions of the statute itself.
Such a provision would be valid and 1% F.O.B. value in
determining handling charges etc. could be justified only in those
cases where actual cost is not ascertainable. The High Court
missed the point that Garden Silk Mills Ltd. case was decided by
this Court in the scenario where actual cost was not
ascertainable. That is why we remark that first amendment to the
proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 which was incorporated vide
JUDGMENT
notification dated 19.12.1989 would meet be justified. However,
the impugned provision clearly fails the test.
33) We would like to refer to the judgment of this Court in Indian
Acrylics (supra) at this juncture. Though, the issue in that case
related to the rate of exchange touching upon the provision in
respect whereof contained in sub-section (3) of Section 14
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 32 of 37
Page 32
(unamended provision), the question of law decided therein would
support the view we are taking in the instant case. A reading of
sub-section (3) of Section 14 would make it clear that such rate of
exchange can be determined by the Board or can be ascertained
in such manner as the Board may direct, for the conversion of
Indian currency into Foreign currency or Foreign currency into
Indian currency. Thus, Board had been given power to determine
the rate of exchange or stipulate the manner in which such rate of
exchange is to be determined. Armed with this power, the
customs authorities notified the rate of exchange for the purposes
of Section 14 at one US dollar equal to Rs.31.44. Notification in
this behalf was issued by the Board on 27.03.1992. On
29.04.1992, the Reserve Bank of India had notified the exchange
rate of one US dollar equal to Rs.25.95. On the basis of this
JUDGMENT
fixation by the Reserve Bank of India, the notification dated
27.03.1992 stipulating exchange rate of one US dollar equal to
Rs.31.44 was challenged as arbitrary fixation of the exchange
rate. This Court sustained the challenge in the following words:
“5. The counter filed by the respondent before
the High Court, as also before this Court, does
not indicate why the rate was fixed at Rs.31.44.
The affidavits do not indicate that the prevalent
Reserve Bank of India rate had been taken into
consideration. Strangely, the High Court,
adverting to this contention, stated that “... In
the absence of any other material brought on
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 33 of 37
Page 33
record, it cannot be held that the rate of
exchange by the Central Government under
Section 14(3)(i) is arbitrary” and it said this after
noting the contention on behalf of the appellant
that the Central Government rate was arbitrary
being different from that fixed by Reserve Bank
of India.
6. The exchange rate fixed by Reserve Bank of
India is the accepted and determinative rate of
exchange for foreign exchange transactions. If
it is to be deviated from to the extent that the
notification dated 27.03.1992 does, it must be
shown that the Central Government had good
reasons for doing so. Reserve Bank of India's
rate, as we have pointed out, was Rs.25.95, the
rate fixed by the notification dated 27.03.1992
was Rs.31.44, so that there was a difference of
as much as Rs.5.51. In the absence of any
material placed on record by the respondents
and in the absence of so much as a reason
stated on affidavit in this behalf, the rate fixed
by the notification dated 27.03.1992 must be
held to be arbitrary.”
34) In the present case before us, the only justification for stipulating
1% of the F.O.B. value as the cost of loading, unloading and
JUDGMENT
handling charges is that it would help customs authorities to apply
the aforesaid rate uniformly. This can be a justification only if the
loading, unloading and handling charges are not ascertainable.
Where such charges are known and determinable, there is no
reason to have such a yardstick. We, therefore, are not
impressed with the reason given by the authorities to have such a
provision and are of the opinion that the authorities have not been
able to satisfy as to how such a provision helps in achieving the
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 34 of 37
Page 34
object of Section 14 of the Act. It cannot be ignored that this
provision as well as Valuation Rules are enacted on the lines of
GATT guidelines and the golden thread which runs through is the
actual cost principle. Further, the loading, unloading and handling
charges are fixed by International Airport Authority.
4
35) In Kunj Behari Lal Butail v. State of H.P. this Court made
following pertinent observation which are apt and contextual and,
therefore, we are reproducing the same:
“13. It is very common for the legislature to
provide for a general rule-making power to carry
out the purpose of the Act. When such a power
is given, it may be permissible to find out the
object of the enactment and then see if the rules
framed satisfy the test of having been so framed
as to fall within the scope of such general power
confirmed. If the rule-making power is not
expressed in such a usual general form then it
shall have to be seen if the rules made are
protected by the limits prescribed by the parent
act. (See: Sant Saran Lal v. Parsuram Sahu, AIR
1966 SC 1852). From the provisions of the Act
we cannot spell out any legislative intent
delegating expressly, or by necessary
implication, the power to enact any prohibition on
transfer of land. We are also in agreement with
the submission of Shri Anil Divan that by placing
complete prohibition on transfer of land
subservient to tea estates no purpose sought to
be achieved by the Act is advanced and so also
such prohibition cannot be sustained. Land
forming part of a tea estate including land
subservient to a tea plantation have been placed
beyond the ken of the Act. Such land is not to
be taken in account either for calculating area of
surplus land or for calculating the area of land
JUDGMENT
4 (2000) 3 SCC 40
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 35 of 37
Page 35
which a person may retain as falling within the
ceiling limit. We fail to understand how a
restriction on transfer of such land is going to
carry out any purpose of the Act. We are fortified
in taking such view by the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Bhim Singhji v. Union of
India, (1981) 1 SCC 166 whereby sub-section
(1) of Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 was struck down as invalid
insofar as it imposed a restriction on transfer of
any urban of urbanisable land with a building or
a portion only of such building which was within
the ceiling area. The provision impugned therein
imposed a restriction on transactions by way of
sale, mortgage, gift or lease of vacant land or
buildings for a period exceeding ten years, or
otherwise for a period of ten years from the date
of the commencement of the Act even though
such vacant land, with or without a building
thereon, fell within the ceiling limits. The
Constitution Bench held (by majority) that such
property will be transferable without the
constraints mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 27 of the said Act. Their Lordships
opined that the light to carry on a business
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution carried with it the right not to carry
on business. It logically followed, as a
necessary corollary, that the right to acquire,
hold and dispose of property guaranteed to
citizen under Article 19(1)(f) carried with it the
right not to hold any property. It is difficult to
appreciate how a citizen could be compelled to
own property against his will though he wanted
to alienate it and the land being within the ceiling
limits was outside the purview of Section 3 of the
Act and that being so the person owning the land
was not governed by any of the provisions of the
Act. Reverting back to the case at hand, the
learned counsel for the State of Himachal
Pradesh has not been able to satisfy us as to
how such a prohibition as is imposed by the
impugned amendment in the Rules helps in
achieving the object of the Act.
JUDGMENT
14. We are also of the opinion that a delegated
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 36 of 37
Page 36
power to legislate by making rules “for carrying
out the purposes of the Act” is a general
delegation without laying down any guidelines; it
cannot be so exercised as to bring into existence
substantive rights or obligations or disabilities
not contemplated by the provisions of the Act
itself.”
36) We are, therefore, of the opinion that impugned amendment,
namely, proviso (ii) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 introduced vide
Notification dated 05.07.1990 is unsustainable and bad in law as
it exists in the present form and it has to be read down to mean
that this clause would apply only when actual charges referred to
in Clause (b) are not ascertainable.
37) As a result, judgment of the High Court is set aside and the
appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
cost.
JUDGMENT
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2015.
Civil Appeal No(s). 9766-9775 of 2003 Page 37 of 37
Page 37