Case Details: Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (2026) 38 Centax 291 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Anita Sumanth & Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, JJ.
- Shri Sachin Chitnis, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee imported Dryers, Heaters and Coolers under Heading 8419 and filed the bill of entry declaring the transaction value. During the investigation, it was found that design charges relating to the imported equipment had not been included in the assessable value. When confronted, the assessee accepted the inclusion of the design charges under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, accepted the enhanced assessable value, and paid the applicable duty. The Commissioner rejected the declared value, ordered confiscation of the goods under clause (m) of Section 111, and permitted redemption on payment of a fine along with a penalty. The assessee challenged only the confiscation and penalty before the tribunal, which dismissed the appeal. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that once the assessee had accepted inclusion of design charges under Rule 12 and paid duty on the enhanced value, the valuation attained finality and could not be reopened. It was held that Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and Notification No. 12/2012-Cus pertained to plans, drawings and designs as independent assessable goods with nil rate of duty and did not exempt design charges forming part of the value of imported equipment. The Court held that the assessee could not resile after conceding undervaluation, and that declaration of incorrect value in the bill of entry rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m). Accordingly, confiscation was sustained, and no interference was warranted.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order No. 40239/2018 dated 30-1-2018 by CESTAT, Chennai — Affirmed [Paras 1, 22]
List of Cases Cited
- Akbar Badrudin Jiwani v Collector — 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) — Applied [Para 24]
- Priyanka Enterprises v. Joint Commissioner — W.P. No. 30233 of 2017, decided on 23-11-2017 by Madras High Court — Referred [Para 11]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002 [Paras 10, 11, 17, 18, 19]
- Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17-3-2012 [Paras 10, 11, 17, 18, 19]
