TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (8) TMI 246
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in after referred to as importers) imported 3 consignments of Acrylic fibre from Korea invoiced at US $ 1 per kg. In the case of one of the consignments the invoice shown that the goods were of B grade Acrylic fibre. The authorities however, noticed that that Acrylic fibre had been imported by other importers at higher price and took note of the price of the goods from countries other than Korea at a price of US $ 1.35 per kg., 1.70 per kg. and also one consignment from the same country i.e. Korea at US $ 1.47 per kg. The consignments priced at US $ 1.47 was imported under the DEEC scheme over three months prior to the importers' import in this case. The goods were tested by SITRA (South India Textile Research Association) an independent or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity had discarded the price of 1.47 US $ which was considered relevant for charge of under valuation as framed in the show cause and adopted another price of the goods of similar variety at which the goods had been imported from countries other than Korea. He has pleaded that once the original authority had adopted the same price which was held out to be forming the basis, there was no warrant to take into reckoning any other price at which the goods were imported from other countries. (b) The lower appellate authority was in error in having adopted the norm of fixation of price based on the price differential prevailing between price of the prime quality and sub-standard quality in India in respect of similar variety of goods. (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which had been imported and which were priced at US $ 1.35. The learned SDR also assailed the method adopted by the lower appellate authority for fixing the price of sub-standard quality of goods taking the prime quality price at 1.47 US $ in the case of the similar goods imported from Korea. He has pleaded that the price differential as obtaining in India would not have any relevance for fixing the price of the imported goods. 5. We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that there is no dispute that the goods imported are of sub-standard quality. The point therefore that falls for consideration is whether the invoice value of US $ 1 per kg. can be accepted. The manufacturer's invoice has not been produced bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he norm prescribed is that invoice value should be acceptable if it satisfies the criterion of the sale in the normal course, read with provisions of Section 14(1). While it could be said that the burden of proof is on the department, but at the same time, it is for the importers to first establish that the goods have been imported satisfying the conditions as set out under Section 14(1) read with the requirement of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to the basis on which this price of US $ 1 per kg. was agreed to more so in the light of the fact that the importers were wanting to get sub-standard goods. Unless it could be shown that the transaction was entered into in the normal course of internati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kg. to US $ 1.70 per kg. According to the appellant, the above price range, as evident from the computer print out obtained by the department, also revalued that the imported Acrylic Fibres were of specified deniers/length and hence, those prices were also not comparable with the impugned goods where the denier and length were not uniform, as per the test report. Secondly, it is also the case of the appellant that the price of Acrylic Fibres of Korean origin were not comparable with the price of Acrylic fibres of other than Korean origin. The print out however, does not reveal any other comparable Acrylic Fibres of Korean origin except the one imported in April, 1996. As a matter of fact, the department does not have on its record the price....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a between the two qualities could not have been adopted. We observe that this is a case where the price has been fixed by best judgment. For arriving at the best judgment we have looked into the basis for the price differential between prime quality and the sub-standard quality. No such basis was before him as it existed in the international market and no such international basis is also brought to our notice by both the sides. The question is whether he has rightly adopted the price differential existing as above as the basis for reducing the price from US $ 1.47. We observe that the import of Acrylic fibres is under OGL and M/s. IPCL also functioning, under open market condition and are competing with the goods which are imported. They ar....