TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ured from the domestic market. During January, 2009, they imported 13,129.989 MT of 'Sulphuric Acid' at a price of US $ 3 per MT CFR Paradeep and filed a Bill of Entry No. 1012 dated 2-1-2009. The Department challenged the value on the ground that the Contract dated 7-12-2007 between the Appellant and the foreign supplier had not been cancelled and that the Contract dated 8-12- 2008 shows supply of 13000 MT whereas Bill of Entry has been filed for 13,129 MT. While the issue relating to finalization of the value, in case of aforesaid Bill of Entry dated 2-1-2009, was pending, the Appellant filed the Bills of Entry Nos. 1035 dated 9-1-2009, 1098 dated 30-1-2009, 1058 dated 15-1-2009 and 1091 dated 29-1-2009 along with the supporting documents, as prescribed under the Customs Act. The lower adjudicating authority enhanced the value in case of B/E. No. 1012 dated 2-1-09 as US $ 107 as per the Contract dated 7-12-07 and in case of remaining B/Es. to US $ 40.50 PMT CFR as per Rule 5 of Valuation Rules, 2007. Similarly, the value in the case of Bills of Entry No. 1152 dated 13-2-2009, 1172 dated 24-2-2009, 1176 dated 24-2-2009 and 000004 dated 1-4-2009, was enhanced to US $ 40.50. The App....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Fall of demand of Sulphuric Acid was due to depression in prices of finished material of South American countries, the major consumers of the product. The above situation prevailing in the international market, resulting in wide fluctuation in the international price of Sulphuric Acid, necessitated fresh negotiation between the Appellants and the overseas supplier leading to reduction in price to US $ 3 per MT., vide Contract dated 8-12-2008, while retain ing all other conditions contained in the Mother Contract dated 7-12-2007. The Appellant also contended that without discharging the onus, the declared price ranging from US $ 3 to US $ 4.25 per MT is not genuine and not based on commercial consideration without disputing the fact that the Appellants actually paid the price at the rate of US $ 3 to $ 4.50 per MT., the department resorted to assessment under Rule 5 of CVR, 2007. As regards the reliance placed by the Department on the contemporaneous import by M/S Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. at US $ 40.50 PMT, the contention of the Appellant is that the quantity imported was 18,870 MT whereas in their case the quantity is 55,361 MT. The impugned Order does record any finding of the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is prior to 31-12-2008 and the declared price is U.S. $ 3 PMT, the lower authority has enhanced the value to US $ 107 PMT, as per Con tract, though in the same period consignment of M/s. PPL has been cleared at US $ 40.50 PMT. The enhancement to US $40.50 PMT would be within the prescription of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules; the enhancement to US $ 107 would not meet the test of legal scrutiny and it is accordingly ordered that in respect of all shipments where the value is declared as US $ 3/4.50 PMT, the enhancement to US $40.50 PMT as per Rule 5 will have to be followed. 5.2 The Department has not contested the reduction of value from U.S $ 107 PMT to U.S $ 40.50 PMT in case of B/E. No. 1012 dated 2-1-2009. Therefore, the issue to be decided is whether enhancement of the value ranges from U.S $ 3 to 4.25, to U.S $ 40.50 is as per law. 5.3 We find that the Department has enhanced the value to US $ 40.50 on the basis of price of contemporaneous import by M/s. Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. In this regard, the contention of the Appellant is that the quantity imported by M/s. Paradeep Phosphate Ltd. was 18,870 MT, whereas the quantity imported by them was 55,361 MT, which is 3½ tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....non-declaration of parameters such as brand, grade, specifications that have relevance to value; (f) the fraudulent or manipulated documents. From the Explanation (1)(i), supra, it is clear that this Rule by itself does not pro vide a method for determination of value; it provides a mechanism and procedure for rejection of declared value in case where there is a reasonable doubt that the declared value does not represent the transaction value; where the declared value is rejected, the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially in accordance with Rules 4 to 9. Thus, the Rule 12 of the CVR, 2007 does not empower the proper officer to reject the transaction value without establishing that the transaction value was not genuine. In case of law Rashesh & Co. V. CC, Mumbai- 2008 (227) E.L.T. 573 (Tri.- Mum) (supra) cited the Tribunal observed as under: "We find merit in the submission of the applicants that the transaction price can be rejected only if the exceptional circumstances stipulated in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules are found to be attracted, as held by the Apex Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC- 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). In the present case, the trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Television Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (214) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] endorsed the same views. "Therefore, the transaction value under Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 is the deeming provision, It talks of deemed value. The value is 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 in the course of international trade where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the sole consideration for the sale or for offer for sale. Therefore, what has to be seen by the Department is the value or cost of the imported goods at the time of importation, i.e., at the time when the goods reaches the customs barrier. Therefore, the invoice price is not sacrosanct. However, before rejecting the invoice price the Department has to give cogent reasons for such rejection. This is because the invoice price forms the basis of the transaction value. There fore, before rejecting the transaction value as incorrect or unacceptable, the Department has to find out whether there are any impo....