TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 777
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reasons as cited in the application, the early hearing is allowed. With the concurrence of both sides, the appeal itself is taken up for decision. 3. The appellant is engaged as a Steamer Agent working in Paradeep Port. The appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner (Cus.), Paradeep for conversion of a foreign run vessel to coastal run in respect of vessel "M.V. RAINBOW". They filed Bills of Entry for assessment to duty of Customs on the estimated quantity of ship stores, viz., High Speed, Diesel Oil, Lube Oil, Paints etc., likely to be consumed in the said vessels in their coastal run. The Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally on the declared value of such ship stores arrived at on the basis of Indian Oil Corporation of India ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of Paradeep, but also in Kolkata and Haldia. (ii) The ld.Advocate submitted that the issue is a recurring one and for the earlier period for conversion of foreign run vessel to coastal run, the Customs Authorities had accepted the bunker price declared on the basis of IOCL price. In this connection, he specifically brought to notice an order passed by the same authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No.03/Cus/B-I/13 dated 20.02.2013. This order passed by the same impugned first appellate authority for an earlier period, has accepted the price declared on the basis of IOCL price. Only for the present period, the Customs authorities have taken a different view and loaded the declared value with elements of freight,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue is a recurring one and for the earlier period, the same first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals), had decided in favour of the appellant. It is further submitted that the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for the earlier period dated 20.02.2013, stands accepted by the Customs Department. 11. We have carefully perused the cited order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and note that the Commissioner (Appeals) had taken the view that the determination of value on the basis of Rule 9, is not justified. Further, he has taken the view that the valuation may be appropriately decided on the basis of Rule 7 of the Valuation Rules. His observations are reproduced below with our approval : "Rule 7 of the Valuation Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ither the imported goods nor identical nor similar imported goods are sold in India in the condition as imported, then, the value shall be based on the unit price at which the imported goods, after further processing, are sold in the greatest aggregate quantity to persons who are not related to the seller in India. (b) In such determination, due allowance shall bw made for the value added by processing and the deductions provided for in items (i) to (iii) of sub-rule (1) of this rule. It would be seen from above that under the deductive valuation method the value of identical/similar goods sold in India is adopted. Following the above principle, the appellant has declared the price on the basis of bonded bunker price as notified....