TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) unless there are factors as laid down in Rule 4(2) of the Valuation Rules which is absent in the present case. There was no Show Cause Notice issued nor there was an allegation that the contract price has not been given effect to and extra money has been paid to other source. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that the Eicher Tractor ruling of the Apex Court is required to be accepted in the present case. It is his contention that the Calcutta High Court, in the case of Sneha Traders Private Ltd. v. CC - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 43 (Cal.) also held that price as prevalent at the time of contract is required to be accepted and subsequent price increase at or near the time of shipment or importation is irrelevant. He further relies on the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Vision Trade Links v. CC, Nagpur - 2004 (169) E.L.T. 151 (Tri. - Del.) wherein also the enhancement valuation was set aside on the ground that no evidence was produced by Revenue to show that transaction value between the parties was influenced by any consideration other than commercial consideration. 2. The learned JDR pointed out that the department can r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oses of assessment. - (1) For the purposes of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (32 of 1934), or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be - (a) the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of importation, or exportation as the case may be, in the course of international trade, where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of each other and the price is the (sole) consideration for the sale or offer for sale; (b) Where such price is not ascertainable, the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf". 6. A perusal of the said provisions contained in Section 14(1)(a) shows that for payment of customs duty the value of the goods is:- (i) the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, (ii) for delivery at the time and place of importation and exportation as the case may be, (iii) in the course of international trade, (iv) where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned, what is necessary is to determine the value of the goods as on the date of importation or exportation. 9. In the present case, the value of the goods has been assessed on the basis of price paid by M/s. Hibotex Pvt. Ltd. in respect of similar goods which were imported from the same supplier at about the same item as import of goods by the appellant. The date of shipment of the goods imported by M/s. Hibotex Pvt. Ltd. was June 25, 1988 and the date of arrival of the goods was August 4, 1988 while in respect of the goods imported by the appellant the date of shipment was June 18, 1988 and the date of arrival was July 26, 1988. There was a difference of about a week only between the dates of shipment and dates of arrival of goods in the said imports. The price of the goods imported by M/s. Hibotex Pvt. Ltd. could, therefore, provide the basis for assessing the value of the goods imported by the appellant. The price of the goods imported by M/s. Hibotex Pvt. Ltd. was 7,00,000 Japanese Yen per se. Having regard to the fact that the appellants had contracted for a larger quantity the Additional Collector has allowed quantity discount of 1,00,000 Japanese Yen per se on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be correct. The facts of the case indicate that the appellant entered into contract with Singapore party for the supply of 1000 MTs. of Sunflower Crude Oil (Edible Grade) at 428 US D per MT CIF Kakinada on 19-6-2001with a condition that the supply is to be made by July, 2001. The foreign supplier defaults. Thereafter, on 31st July 2001, the parties agree for extending the time for delivery till September 2001. On 10-8-2001, the first consignment of 500 MT was cleared by Bill of Entry at 428 USD per MT. On 29-9-2001, the last consignment of 500 MT was sought to be cleared at the same rate. Since in the same vessel, another consignment of identical goods were supplied at 485 US D per MT, the Revenue initiated action against the appellant for differential duty on the ground that there is a contemporaneous value at 485 US D per MT. 6. From the above facts, it is clear that the transaction value in respect of the appellant is only 428 US D per MT. If we have to reject the transaction value, the transaction should fall under any one of the instances enumerated in Rule 4(2). In my view, none of the instances enumerated in Rule 4(2) is applicable to the present case. The value of 428 US....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the goods up to September 2001. Accordingly, the goods were supplied in two consignments of 500 MTs each before the end of September 2001. The first consignment was cleared at Customs on 10-8-2001 against payment of duty on the value declared in the Bill of Entry viz. US $ 428 per MT. The second (and last) consignment of 500 MTs was also sought to be cleared likewise by the appellants under Bill of Entry dated 29-9-2001. At this stage, the department sought to enhance the assessable value of the goods to US D 485 per MT on the basis of a contemporaneous import. In the vessel which brought the second consignment of crude sunflower oil to the appellants, there was another consignment of 500 MTs of identical goods supplied at the rate of US $ 485 per MT to another importer viz. M/s. Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. It was this import by M/s. Priyanka Refineries Pvt. Ltd. that was adopted as 'contemporaneous import' for the purpose of assessment of the appellants' goods. The issue before me is whether it was open to the department to reject the transaction value of the subject goods and adopt the value of the contemporaneously imported goods. 10. Heard both sides. Ld. Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Eicher Tractors (supra). The Apex Court rejected the Revenue's contention that Rule 4(1) allowed the ordinary international value of the goods to be ascertained on the basis of data other than the price actually paid for the goods. Their lordships, further, held that, in terms of Section 14(1) and Rule 4, the price paid by an importer to the vendor in the ordinary course of trade shall be taken to be the value in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicated in Section 14(1) and particularized under Rule 4(2). The special circumstances particularized under Rule 4(2) were also reproduced in the Apex Court's judgment and the same are as under :- "(a) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods by the buyer other than restrictions which - (i) are imposed or required by law or by the public authorities in India; or (ii) limit the geographical area in which the goods may be resold; or (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods; (b) the sale or price is not subject to same condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods being valued; ....