TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (3) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... calling for their explanation on difference of price. The same was challenged before the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court had passed the order to allow bonding of the subject goods under Section 49 without payment of duty and to decide the case after receiving reply to the show cause notice from the importers on or before 2-8-1988. The said order of the High Court was complied with. In the meantime, the importers preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) against the assessment order. The Collector (Appeals) admitted the importers appeal on the following grounds : 1.  The department has accepted the contracted price earlier and hence contract cannot be rejected without valid reasons. 2.  Applicability of Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had rightly rejected the assessment under Section 14(1)(a). They also rely on the assessment order, which had compared the imported goods from France and Japan, so as to indicate the global trend of prices of comparable goods only. It is also stated that it is not binding on the Revenue to prove under invoicing and extra remittance to reject invoice price in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 . 3.  We have heard the Learned DR, Shri A.K. Singhal for the Revenue and the Learned Advocate, Shri V.S. Nankani for the importer/respondent. 4.  The Learned DR submitted that the Assistant Collector had rightly rejected the contracted price under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act for the reasons stated by him in his order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on L/C payable at sight. The said endorsement is clearly seen from the L/C. Description of goods is definite and clear. There is a delivery schedule, which has been wrongly rejected by the Assistant Collector on the wrong presumption that there is no delivery schedule. He pointed out to L/C which had referred to the part shipment and also pointed out to the amendment carried out on the L/C which showed extended shipment upto 21-2-1988 and as shipment has been completed on 19-2-1988, the import is with this date of L/C. Therefore, he submitted that invoice corroborates L/C produced in the case. He submitted that the party had been continuously performing the contract and hence there was no reason to reject the contracted value. He submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ratio rendered in the case [of] P.A.C. Systems (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 614 and the case of Jalaram Trading Co. v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 43 (sic). 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the records. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the contracted price of the importer can be rejected? The Assistant Collector in the order of assessment has rejected the contract and has held that the assessment cannot be done under Section 14(1)(a) as the contracted price is not acceptable. Therefore, the Assistant Collector has proceeded to value the goods under Rule 3 to 8 of the Customs Valuation Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of the goods. This finding has been found to be factually incorrect and it has been pointed out before the lower authorities and before us, that the L/C had clearly indicated that the payment would be at sight and the date of expiry had also been indicated. The Collector (Appeals) has verified this aspect and has found that the first shipment was partial import and thereafter the import has been completed within the validity period of the L/C. Therefore, the ground on which the contract had been rejected has been found to be on incorrect ground on appreciation of facts. 9. The other question is as to whether the Assistant Collector was right in relying on the invoice values of import from Hong Kong in respect of the goods of Japanese ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l upheld the evidence discovered by the Revenue during the course of investigation. The Tribunal had observed after noting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormull as reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1546 that the customs find it difficult to ascertain the correct value, when details are known between two parties and the facts are not visible and the transaction is covered by a veil of secrecy. Therefore, the Tribunal held that actual value cannot be proved with mathematical precision and in such circumstances, reasonable help can be taken of the documents available and other circumstances. The ratio of this judgment is totally inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The department....