TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s thereof tested, whereupon it was confirmed that the goods were of the same grade as declared by the importer. However, the above declared price, which was based on a contract dated 17-2-2005 between the importer and the foreign supplier, was proposed to be rejected by the department having regard to higher contemporaneous price available for identical goods from the same country of origin. The essential particulars of the 'contemporaneous" imports were furnished to the assessee and the same are as under : - S. No. B.E. No. & Date Despn./Grade Unit Price USD/KG Quantity (Kgs.) 1. 106011/18-8-05 MRS-3A/4A 22.70 9142.86 2. 106010/18-8-05 -do- 22.36 9058.99 The adjudicating authority overruled t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prior to 15-9-2005. Learned Senior Advocate for the respondents has countered by submitting that such enhancement was agreed to, without prejudice to the assessee's right to have the transaction value accepted in the event of a 'lis'. Relying on the Tribunal's decision in the cases of Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 68 (Tri. Bang.) and Agarwal Industries v. Commissioner - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 421 (Tri. Bang.), learned Senior Counsel has urged that the apex Court's ruling in Eicher Tractors (supra) be followed in preference to Rajkumar Knitting Mills (supra) on account of change of the relevant statutory provisions. According to learned Counsel, none of the factors or circumstances particularised under Rule 4(2) existed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of Rule 4. The authority, therefore, rejected the declared price under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. But the residual method provided under Rule 8 could be resorted to only where the assessable value of the goods could not be determined under any of the preceding rules including Rule 5 whereunder transaction value of identical goods sold for export to India and imported at or about the same time as the goods being valued could be adopted as the assessable value of the latter goods. By adopting unit price of USD 22.36 per kg. of identical goods cleared under two Bills of Entiy dated 18-8-2005, as the assessable value per unit quantity of the subject goods, the original authority was invoking Rule 5 of the Valuation Rules. It was not open....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the bearings to Japanese Yen 2507 per piece under Rule 8 on the basis of the vendor's price list coupled with permissible discounts. The appeal preferred against the Assistant Collector's decision was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). But, in course of time, the order of the appellate authority came to be set aside by this Tribunal in an appeal filed by the Department. This was the circumstance in which the apex Court happened to deal with the dispute in a civil appeal filed by the assessee. Their lordships noted that: (i) the department had not alleged that the assessee had misdeclared the price actually paid, (ii) the assessee had not misdescribed the goods; and (iii) the department had no case that the particular import fell withi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant has not established that any of the special circumstances particularised under Rule 4(2) existed in this case. 3. Learned SDR has heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajkumar Knitting Mills' case (supra), wherein it had been held that the assessable value of the imported goods had to be determined on the basis of the price as on the date of importation and not on the basis of the price as on the date of contract. Apparently, this ruling permitted the assessing authority to make enquiry in the international market to find out contemporaneous price of identical goods. But, we note, the concept of transaction value underwent a change through amendment of Rule 4 after the decision in Rajkumar Knitting Mills (su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sable value of the goods in question. 5. Learned SDR has relied on the Tribunal's decision in ABM International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 704 (Tri. Del.), wherein the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajkumar Knitting Mills (supra) was followed for holding that the assessable value of the goods imported was to be determined with reference to the date of importation and not with reference to the date of contract entered into between the importer and the foreign supplier. It is noticed that the date of import in the case of ABM International (supra) is prior to amendment of the relevant Valuation Rule. 6. We have already held that there is no valid reason in this case to reject the declared value of ....