Case Details: M.M.T.C. Pamp India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2026) 38 Centax 240 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P. V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- S/Shri Tushar Jarwal, Rahul Sateeja & Ms Pakhi Jain, Advs., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Gurdeep Singh, Special Counsel & Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The importer imported gold and silver dore bars for refining and minting, and the goods were cleared on provisional Bills of Entry, which were later finalised upon receipt of CRCL test reports. The dispute concerned the inclusion of metal lease charges levied by the overseas supplier in the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer contended that such metal lease charges were in the nature of interest on deferred payment accruing after import of the dore bars and issuance of the final invoice. The Principal Commissioner found that under the agreements, ownership of the imported gold and silver alloys/products was not transferred to the importer at the time of import and the importer was treated as a bailee by the overseas supplier; that the importer had stated before the Reserve Bank of India that no interest was paid to the overseas supplier; and that the metal lease charges were paid as a condition of sale and were includible in the transaction value. In appeal, the importer did not dispute that ownership of the imported goods was not transferred at the time of import. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that in view of the specific terms of the agreement and the stand taken by the importer before the Reserve Bank of India, the metal lease charges were not in the nature of interest. It held that such charges were includible in the assessable value of the imported goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the ownership of the goods had not transferred to the importer at the time of import and that the importer was treated as a bailee. It therefore upheld the adjudication authority’s decision confirming the demand for differential duty on the metal lease charges.
List of Cases Cited
- Aquatech Systems (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2019 (369) E.L.T. 935 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 24]
- Maruthi Plastics v. Commissioner — 2019 (367) E.L.T. 43 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 24]
- Sunbeam Light Weighing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2022 (380) E.L.T. 215 (Tri. – Del.) — Referred [Para 24]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 [Paras 4, 7]
- Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017 [Paras 4, 7]
