TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....U.S. $ 1100 per M.T. to U.S. $ 1309.05 in terms of Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules read with Section 14(1)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres, tubes and flaps at their various factories in Maharashtra State. From time to time the appellant imports Polybutadiene Synthetic Rubber for the manufacture of tyres. The said synthetic rubber are petro-based products. The appellant entered into contracts with M/s. Taiwan Synthetic Rubber Corporation, Taiwan through their agents M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan for the import of the said item Polybutadiene rubber. The appellant placed on 18-4-1991 two purchase orders Nos. IMP/RM/BHP/48 & 50 for 100.8 M.T. each at the unit price of U.S.$ 1100 per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taken place within around 90 days. Therefore, they could he held as contemporaneous. He confirmed the order. Hence the present appeal. 3. The learned Counsel Shri D.B. Shroff, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that when the goods arrived on 12-6-1991 and 20-9-1991 there was a query memo which stated as follows:- "Unit price of the goods under reference is US $ 1100 per M.T. Price of the same item imported by other importers is found to be @ US $ 1205 and US $ 1203 PMT. Please explain the discrepancy in price. Also state whether you want PH or SCN." He therefore stated that the appellant waived the SCN and personal hearing was asked for. In the personal hearing, the appellant had explained GATT Valuation Rules. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o us that after the Gulf crisis the prices started sliding and he said the comparable price with that of M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. purchased sought to be relied on by the department is wrong. He stated that the order of the M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. was much earlier in point of time. He stated that in the Bill of Entry No. 3374, dated 13-6-1991 the quantity ordered was 267 M.T. and the purchase order was dated 23-11-1990. The price was at 12.5 PMT and the date of shipment was May, 1991. In the other Bill of Entry, viz. 3375, dated 13-6-1991 the purchase order was dated 8-2-1991. The quantity ordered was 214.200 MT and the price was 12.3 PMT and the shipment was on 8-5-1991. He argued that in the instant case the quantity ordered was only on 16-4-19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... December, 1990 : US $ 567/MT January, 1991 : US $ 466/MT February, 1991 : US $ 429/MT March, 1991 : US $ 374/MT April, 1991 : US $ 308/MT May, 1991 : US $ 305/MT" He specifically stated that in view of this, when there is an everchanging price of the value of Butadiene Monomer when compared to November, 1990 and May, 1991 international price bound to change. He also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in Gold Plast India (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1991 (53) E.L.T. 147. 4. As against this Shri C.P. Rao the ld. DR while reiterating the orders passed by the authorities, stated that the reasons for difference in price have not been made by the manufacturer but only by the agent. This shows that there is some suspicion. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... states that the price of Butadiene Monomer has started falling in April, 1991 and from the statement extracted in the argument portion of Shri Shroff would definitely show from November, 1990 onwards the price has been sliding 580 M.T. to 305 M.T. in May, 1991. The order has been placed in this case in April, 1991. Therefore it is not unreasonable to hold that there is a slide in prices. Moreover the quantity between these two purchases, viz. M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. and M/s. Ceat Ltd. are entirely different. The department did not show that there was no slide in the value of the price of Butadiene Monomer which is a raw material for production of the goods under consideration. The manufacturer's certificate dated 30-1-1992 specifically state....