TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the goods imported under Bills of Entry No. F-188 dt 25/2/2009 on the grounds that contracts of the relied upon consignments and the impugned consignment was different and difference in prices was justified due to fluctuation of international prices of USA origin US Green Petroleum Coke as per Para 6,7, and 8 of the OIA dated 11/8/2012. 2. Shri J Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that first appellate authority has not appreciated the facts properly as in both cases the goods were USA Origin US Green Petroleum Coke having the same port of destination. That not only the cargo arrived in all cases was received in the same vessel but invoices and bills of shipments were also either consecutive or were issued on closely p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the same supplier. First appellate authority has set aside the OIO enhancing the assessable value primarily on the grounds that goods imported at higher value were under a different contract when international prices of the imported goods were fluctuating. On a similar issue CESTAT Chennai in the case of CC Chennai vs Pushpanjali Silks Pvt Ltd (Supra) has held as follows in Para 4: This Tribunal had occasion to distinguish Rajkumar Knitting Mills case in the case of Andhra Sugars (supra). In that case, the goods were supplied to the importer at a price agreed between them and their supplier. The department had not alleged that anything in excess of the agreed pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the present appeal also there is no evidence on record to suggest that any amount over and above the transaction value has been repatriated by the Respondent with respect to imported goods of Bill of Entry No. F-188 dt 25/7/2008. The Act of the respondent J K Cements Ltd showing a higher C&F Value for the similar goods under Bills of Entry No F.187 gives an indication to the genuine nature of transaction based on the contracts as respondent has not hidden any facts from the department. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Vishakapatanam vs. Aggrawal Industries Ltd [2011(272)ELT.641(SC)] on similar facts held as following Para 13 and 14: 13. Applying the above princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad with Rule 4 of CVR, 1988 merely because by the time actual shipment took place in August 2001, international price of the oil had increased drastically. No other reason has been ascribed to reject the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except the drastic increase in price of the commodity in the international market and the difference in price in the invoices in relation to the goods imported under contracts entered by the respondents in the month of August 2001. In our opinion, the import instances relied upon by the revenue could not be treated as instances indicating contemporaneous value of the goods because contracts for supply of the goods in those cases were entered into almost after a month from the date of contract in the present....