1987 (2) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aring them. However, they added in the same breath that they did not want a remand of the matter, to the Collector (Appeals) but wanted this Tribunal to decide it on merits. Today, when the hearing was resumed, they again stated that they were not pressing the point of not being heard by the Collector (Appeals). 2A. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants were sole distributors of about 20 foreign suppliers of Scientific Instruments, for the whole of India. For this purpose they had entered into agreements with these foreign suppliers. According to these agreements, they were to get discount/commission ranging from 12.5% to 20% on the Instruments imported by them. In terms of agreement, out of the discount/commission, the appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rule 5(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules,1963. The lower authorities have, on the other hand, held that since there were sizeable imports of the Instruments by other independent importers in India, value under Section 14(l)(a) was ascertainable from the prices paid by these other importers and, as such, resort could not be had to Section 14(l)(b) and the Valuation Rules. 3. We have heard both sides at length and have given the matter our earnest consideration. For ready reference, we re-produce below the material portion of Section 14 of the Customs Act - "14. VALUATION OF GOODS FOR PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT-(1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of l975), or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial to make the products marketable. The appellants performed these services and obligations at their own cost which was in addition to the net price which they paid to the foreign supplier. The foreign supplier got this additional consideration in the shape of services if not in cash. For this reason, the net price paid by the appellants could not be the assessable value in terms of Section 14(l)(a). But that alone would not be a sufficient reason for leaving out Section 14(l)(a) and going to Section 14(l)(b) because in this case there were sizeable import of the same goods by other independent importers. The price which these other independent importers paid fulfilled all the ingredients of Section 14(l)(a). These other importers had not ....