TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (8) TMI 262
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants have been undervalued. Price declared by the appellants as per the invoice accompanying the goods is US $ 1100 PMT. The learned lower authority has taken note of the contemporaneous imports of the said products imported from the very same manufacturer which had been imported at a higher price of US $ 1280 PMT and has, therefore, held that the appellants' goods had been undervalued and for that reason there has been mis-declaration. He has, therefore, ordered for enhancement of the value for assessment purposes and also proceeded to confiscate the goods and also levied a redemption fine of Rs. 65,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/-. 2A. The learned Consultant has pleaded that the appellants had not imported the goods dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s introduced instructions vide A.P. DO No. 77/88 were issued that even where there is a higher price the invoice value should not be rejected unless a basis is laid on facts that this price was not acceptable. In this connection, he has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Basant Inds. v. Addl. CC, Bombay, reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (SC) and referred us to the facts in that case and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to acceptance of a lower price where contemporaneous imports at a higher rate has been made. Just because the goods have been arranged to be purchased through a trader that by itself would not cast any shadow on the bona fides of the transaction. The transaction value sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DR has pleaded that in terms of Section 14, in case there are contemporaneous prices available for the import of the goods from the same manufacturer in the normal course, the prices of the contemporaneously imported goods should form the basis. More so, when the goods in this case had not been purchased directly from the manufacturer in question. In the present case, these are routed through the trader, the appellants appeared to have manipulated the prices. In any case, Section 14(1) which provides for a deemed price should have precedence over the rules and for that reason Rule 4 will not come into play. In this connection, the learned DR cited the decision in the case of M/s. Plast Fab v. CC reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 441 = 1993 (47)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rules clearly states that where the transaction is at arms length and there are no mala fides shown to be involved and the transaction has been arranged in the normal course of business, the price at which the goods are imported should form the basis for transaction value. The instructions as contained in A.P. DO No.77/88 (Paras 6 & 8) in this regard is as under : "6. Once the importer has produced all required information it is necessary for the customs administration to decide on the method of valuation to be adopted and to determine the value. Declared value cannot be rejected without due consideration. The value also cannot be loaded solely because it is lower than the previous]y accepted customs values. It is here the data base....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is only about 10 to 15% lower than the price at which the other importers had made the imports directly. The appellants have been able to produce evidence by way of the invoices of the manufacturer covering the appellants goods showing a lower price to the trader in Singapore. There is no acceptable reason given in the learned lower authority's order that this piece of evidence could not be accepted, once the appellants have been able to show that this lower price had been obtained by them in the normal course of business when the modalities of transactions also appear to be genuine, in that case, the transaction value has, therefore, to be accepted. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Basant Inds. cited supra has obse....