TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant imported Ethylene Vinyl Acetate [EVA] from M/s. International Polymers Company, of Saudi Arabia and filed a Bill of Entry. The Vinyl Acetate content of EVA declared by the appellant was 18%. Samples were drawn and sent for testing to the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology [CIPET] and the test report indicated the vinyl acetate content was 22.4%. 3. Since the vinyl acetate content of EVA is a major determinant of the price of EVA, the declared value was rejected and it was re-determined based on the contemporaneous imports and duty was demanded accordingly. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by the impugned order, rejected the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on value must be accepted. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT 6. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue made the following submissions: i) The impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference; ii) Test reports are as good as the samples which are collected. The only sample of the imported good which was tested as is evident from the test reports is the sample tested by CIPET; iii) The two test reports relied upon by the appellant do not say anywhere that the samples which they tested were from the consignment in the disputed Bill of Entry; iv) The test report of the supplier of the appellant M/s. International Polymers Company, Saudi Arabia dated 30.3.2015 indicates that vinyl acetate content was 18.1% but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ince there were no contemporaneous imports of EVA with 24% vinyl acetate content from Saudi Arabia, the lowest of the values of imports from other regions was adopted. FINDINGS 7. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The contention of the appellant is two-fold: a) Reliance on the test report of CIPET is not correct; and b) Even if the test report is accepted, the method of re-determination of value is not correct. 8. The appellant assails the CIPET's test report on the ground that it had adopted the incorrect method for testing and that there were two other test reports - one from its own supplier and the other from a private laboratory which show vinyl acetate content of only 18%. The submission, therefore, is whichever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich are followed world over. We find no reason to believe that the ASTM standard followed by the CIPET is incorrect. While various testing methods and protocols are developed, we do not believe, in the absence of any evidence, that two methods prescribed by the ASTM will give such varied results -one giving vinyl acetate percentage as 22.4 and the other giving it as 18. It is also to be noted that the test report of the supplier of the appellant relied upon also had not followed ASTM D 5594-98 but followed its own internally developed test method which is certified by itself to give the results similar to ASTM D 5594-98. In short, to accept this submission of the appellant, we have to not only question the technical knowledge and expertise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the second question of valuation, the imported EVA was declared to have 18% vinyl acetate but on testing by CIPET was found to contain 22.4% vinyl acetate. So, the proper officer had a reasonable doubt and correctly rejected the transaction value under Rule 12 of the Valuation Rules. 15. Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any evidence that any additional amount was remitted by the appellant for the consignment, the transaction value must be accepted. It needs to be remembered that the transaction value is the consideration paid by the buyer to the seller and is a subject matter of negotiation. If there was indeed, an additional consideration for sale, it can be added under Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules. But the transactio....