2001 (11) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tailed in that order. 2. The appellants filed four bills of entry for clearance of metal scrap and the same were assessed at declared invoice value. The goods were examined and cleared after payment of duty. However, subsequently, it revealed that the goods were assessed at lower price inasmuch as LME prices prevalent on the date of import were more than the price declared by the appellants. Accordingly, four show cause notices, all dated 11-1-1999 in respect of four bills of entry, were served on the appellants vide which the differential duty demand was raised from them. They contested the correctness of those show cause notices and maintained that the price declared by them in the bills of entry of the imported goods, was correct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....declared was lower than the LME prices prevalent on the date of import of the goods in question and even the contemporaneous imports of those goods by other exporters showed that the price declared by the appellants was much lower than the actual prevalent price of contemporaneous imports. Therefore, the transaction price has been rightly rejected by the Customs authorities. He has sought support to his argument from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. v. CC, Bombay, 1998 (98) E.L.T. 292 (S.C.). 5. We have heard both sides and gone through the facts on record. 6. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported Metal Scrap. They filed four bills of entry as detailed i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which the said or like goods are sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation and exportation in the cases of international trade." In this judgment, however, the provisions of Rules 3(i), 4(1) and 4(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 did not come up for consideration before the Apex Court as it appears that the import in that case was much earlier to the enforcement of these Rules which came into operation on 16th August, 1988. 8. However, the said Rules i.e. Rules 3(i) and 4(1) had been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd., supra, while dealing with a dispute regarding the valuation of the imported goods. In para 8 of the ....