2001 (9) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Antimony Trioxide 99.5% from M/s. Sun & Co. Ltd., Tokyo, as per Contract No. 2686 dated 24-10-1999 @ U.S. $ 1164 PMT; that they filed Bill of Entry No. 104110 on 24-11-1999 for the clearance of the impugned goods; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh and enhanced the value to U.S.$ 4643 per M.T. on the basis of the prices of the goods mentioned in the 'Chemical Trade Intelligence Bulletin of October 1, 1999'. The learned Counsel, further, submitted that the assessable value has been enhanced entirely on the basis of price of imports of similar goods shown in the said Bulletin; that as per Rule 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... quantity imported by the Appellants; that they had purchased the goods from first stage dealer who is in Japan and who has purchased goods directly from manufacturer whereas in case of Bill of Entry dated 8-12-1999 there is nothing to show whether the foreign supplier was the first stage or the second stage dealer and what was the manufacturer's price. He relied upon the decision in the case of Basant Industries v. Collector of Customs, 1993 (66) E.L.T. 93 (T) wherein it was held that as the quantity imported by the appellant is 2½ times more than the quantity imported under the invoice relied upon by the Department, the price mentioned therein cannot be treated as comparable price for the purpose of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....99; that admittedly the Appellants had entered into a contract with foreign supplier in September, 1999 and as such the price of imports effected in July and mentioned in the Bulletin is contemporaneous; that the price declared by the Appellants is on a very low side and even if declining trend is examined, the price of the impugned goods cannot go down to U.S. $ 1164 per M.T. from U.S. $ 4643 mentioned in the Bulletin, from July to September, 1999; the Department has thus accepted the price as mentioned in Bulletin of October 1st, 1999 being the contemporary one. He also contended that the price has shown an upward trend as in Bill of Entry dated 8-12-1999, the price is U.S. $ 5900 per M.T. Alternatively he submitted that as the Appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er M.T. while it is found to be U.S.$ 4643 per M.T. in the next month. In the face of such downward trend it is very important to see the data for November, 1999 before reaching any finding about what could have been the price in that month. When the montly data was available and showed a downward trend, we are at a loss to understand how the order was passed in April, 2000 without considering the data for the month of import." 5. We, further, observe that after this observation made by the Bench, the Revenue has only produced a Bill of Entry dated 8-12-1999 showing the price of U.S. $ 5900 per M.T. but this import cannot be considered to be import of identical goods under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules. For applying the valu....