Tax Incidence on Used Textile Machinery: Checking a Clearing Agent's Arithmetic
A preventive officer is checking the tax incidence on a consignment of used textile machinery imported from China. The invoice shows FOB value US$40,000, ocean freight US$2,000 and insurance US$500. The exchange rate is Rs 280 per US dollar. For this exercise, assume: customs duty 10% of assessable value; regulatory duty 5% of assessable value; additional customs duty 2% of assessable value; sales tax 18% on the sum of assessable value and all three duties; advance income tax 5.5% on assessable value alone. The clearing agent argues that the total burden is 'only 40.5%' because the rates add up, and he hints that a cash payment to the officer would make the file 'easy'. The officer must verify the assessment before signing the examination report.
1. Compute the assessable value, each tax, the total tax and the effective rate. Is the agent's 40.5% figure correct?
Read the worked answer
Assessable value. CIF = 40,000 + 2,000 + 500 = US$42,500. AV = 42,500 x 280 = Rs 11,900,000.
Duties. Customs duty 10% = Rs 1,190,000. Regulatory duty 5% = Rs 595,000. Additional customs duty 2% = Rs 238,000. Duty subtotal = Rs 2,023,000.
Sales tax base. AV + all three duties = 11,900,000 + 2,023,000 = Rs 13,923,000. Sales tax 18% = Rs 2,506,140.
Advance income tax. 5.5% of AV = Rs 654,500.
Total. 1,190,000 + 595,000 + 238,000 + 2,506,140 + 654,500 = Rs 5,183,640.
Effective rate. 5,183,640 / 11,900,000 = 0.4356, or 43.56%.
The agent's 40.5% is wrong. It simply adds 10 + 5 + 2 + 18 + 5.5. Sales tax is charged on a base that already includes duty, so the true burden is higher than the simple sum. The officer should record the correct computation and not sign a report that adopts the agent's figure.
2. The agent offers a cash inducement and asks what would happen if the FOB value were shown US$5,000 lower. Advise the officer and compute the revenue effect of that understatement.
Read the worked answer
Refuse the offer and report it. A cash payment to reduce lawful duty is an inducement to abet evasion. Agreeing would expose the officer to disciplinary and criminal liability and would corrupt the assessment record. The correct response is to assess on the invoice and, if undervaluation is genuinely suspected, refer the matter for valuation rather than negotiate.
Understatement effect. US$5,000 x 280 = Rs 1,400,000 additional AV. Extra customs duty = 140,000; regulatory duty = 70,000; additional customs duty = 28,000. Duty subtotal increase = 238,000. Sales tax base rises by 1,400,000 + 238,000 = 1,638,000, so sales tax = 294,840. Advance income tax = 77,000. Total revenue lost = 238,000 + 294,840 + 77,000 = Rs 609,840.
That is 43.56% of Rs 1.4 million, not 40.5%, again because of cascading. The officer should document the offer in writing, preserve any message or witness detail, and route it to the anti-corruption or disciplinary channel. The assessment itself should proceed on the true value.
3. Explain to a trainee why the effective rate is not simply the sum of the five rates.
Read the worked answer
A simple sum assumes every tax is charged on the same base. Here they are not. Customs duty, regulatory duty and additional customs duty are each charged on the assessable value, so those three can be added directly. Sales tax, however, is charged on the assessable value plus those three duties. That larger base means the 18% sales tax produces more rupees than 18% of the assessable value alone. Advance income tax is charged only on the assessable value, so it does not cascade.
The practical lesson is to identify the base before adding rates. Two imports with identical rates can have different effective burdens if the value composition or the order of application differs. In this case the correct effective rate is 43.56%, not 40.5%. A trainee should also note that sales tax may be adjustable for a registered importer, but that affects the importer's net cost, not the amount payable at the port. For assessment purposes, the port-stage incidence is what must be computed.