TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e supplier viz: Wajilam Exports (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. They also produced import licence for a value of Rs. 14,83,140/- for clearance of the goods. However, the consignment appeared to be under valued to the Customs Authorities and they were prima facie of the view that the correct CIF price ought to be US $ 900 per M.T. The value was, therefore, enhanced to Rs. 32.46 per Kg. i.e. US $ 900 per M.T. and the consignment was assessed at the enhanced value of Rs. 25,97,040/- under Order-in-Original No. C.C-I/VS/I.C.D./9/97 dated 28-4-1997. The order also noted that the importer accepted the enhanced value during personal hearing. The consignment was also confiscated on charge of undervaluation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and the impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation order are not according to relevant provisions of the Customs Act at all. In the present case the assessment should have been done at the transaction value as no evidence has come on record to show that the transaction value was not in conformity with Section 14 of the Customs Act. It has not been shown in any way that the transaction value is not the price actually paid for payable for the goods when sold for export to India or that any adjustment is required to be made in the transaction value in accordance with Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules. No evidence has also been brought on record to show that the transaction value has been vitiated on account of any extra considerations. They have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. 1996 (88) E.L.T. 540 (T) = 1996 (17) RLT 469 (T) 4. 1996 (16) RLT 13 (T) 5. 1996 (86) E.L.T. 85 (T) 3. On the contrary it has been submitted on behalf of Revenue that Section 14 of the Customs Act specifically permits offer price being a valid basis for assessment. This position has also been accepted by the Bombay High Court in its decision in the case of Satellite Engineering Ltd. v. Union of India & Others reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 356. With regard to the debit of higher value from import licence, the Revenue has referred us to the following decisions : 1. 1990 (45) E.L.T. 249 para 30 2. 198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for export to India and adjusted in accordance with Rule 9 and Rule 4(2) of the Rules indicates the conditions under which price actually paid or payable would not constitute transaction value and that none of the exceptions mentioned in Rule 4(2) is involved in the present case. There is also no evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at a higher price. The two documents produced in no way represents contemporaneous imports. The letter dated 15th October is a mere quotation and there is no evidence to show that an actual import took place at that price contemporaneously with that of the appellants. The second document is merely a compilation of data about prices of selected Asia/ Pacific products. The U.N. Publica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vers the present case squarely. We read the relevant portions of that judgment : "9. According to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 and Section 14(1A) of the Customs Act, the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value. It is only if the transaction value cannot be determined, then the value can be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8." "11. The Commissioner of Customs relied upon the proforma invoice said to have been issued by a different company in Singapore. Proforma invoice is nothing more than a tentative statement of the seller for sale of the goods at the price mentioned therein. Until the buyer accepts it and enters into the actual transaction of ....