TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (12) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onne. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs sought to increase the assessable value to US $ 1890 per M.T. on the basis of an import of similar goods by another importer from the same supplier at the higher price for a similar quantity. The appellants sought to explain the difference as possibly due to difference in terms of payment in the relevant contract saying that when payment by credit is allowed price charged is higher. They chose to have the case adjudicated without a formal show cause notice. The Asstt. Commissioner gave them a personal hearing and passed Order-in-Assessment on each Bill of Entry enhancing the assessable value dismissing the appellants' explanation as unsubstantiated. The appeals against the Asstt. Commissioner's order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alue under that Section. 3. Shri K.M. Mondal, the ld. SDR contended that as per Section 124 of the Customs Act the show cause notice and the representation could be oral. In the present case the appellants had waived the issue of show cause notice and as per their request personal hearing had been granted to them and the ld. SDR contended that it can reasonably be presumed that during the personal hearing the charge of undervaluation and the basis thereof had been explained to the appellants. Even otherwise, the Asstt. Commissioner's orders-in-assessment clearly bring out the necessary particulars of the import compared showing that it was from the same supplier for a similar quantity. With such particulars available, the appellants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment has to be kept in mind. The records show that the first query regarding valuation raised in this case by the Assessing Officer was "The group has noticed import of similar goods at a price of US $ 1890 per M.T. In your case the goods are invoiced at a price of US $ 1780 per M.T. Please explain the difference." The query was answered on 11-6-1985 saying that the price declared was one for sight L/C payment and that suppliers Indian indenting agent had also informed that for payment with credit facilities and without L/C a higher price is applicable. It was further submitted that the appellants had imported the goods at the same price from another supplier which had been accepted by the Customs House. In their letter of 29-6-1985 the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch material. As observed earlier, when the appellants had consistently taken the stand that the price difference would be due to the different terms of payment, the Customs House ought to have confronted them with the full particulars including the terms of payment of the other import. This would further be required because it is not the case of the department that the appellants and the suppliers are related persons so as to influence the price. On the other hand, they have placed the order through the indenting agents of the suppliers which would show that the goods had been sold to the appellants under competitive conditions which terms has been defined in Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 to mean a sale in the ordinary course of trade betw....