TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 242
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom M/s. Sun Flower General Trading Co., Ajman, U.A.E. and G.A. International, Dubai, U.A.E. The related five Bills of Entry were filed between 30-7-1994 and 2-12-1994 through the same CHA. The goods were allowed provisional clearance against PD Bond pending chemical test and verification of value. On subsequent test, such goods were found to be 'Cyan uric Chloride'. 2. On verification, the Customs authorities have ascertained the value of large number of imports of Cyan uric Chloride of Chinese origin imported at unit price of US $ 1860 PMT to US $ 1950 PMT during the period June, 1994 to November, 1994 as against the price declared by the appellants which was Singapore $ 750 equivalent to US $ 500 PMT only. As such, the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 4), subject of course to the provisions of Article 17 [Rule 19(2)] of the Agreement." 4. On the other hand, Shri Hitesh Shah, learned SDR arguing for the department makes the following submissions :- (1) The value declared by the appellants is equivalent to US $ 500 which is ridiculously low and unrealistic compared to the comparable imports of the same origin during the same period at prices ranging from US $ 1860 to US $ 1950. He also states that the impugned goods of Chinese origin have been imported from Ajman and Dubai in U.A.E. and no invoices from the manufacturer have been produced. As such, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bombay v. Shibani Engineers Ltd. [1996 (8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to ascertain the price at which the said or like goods are sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation and exportation in the cases of international trade. The words "ordinarily sold or offered for sale" do not refer to the contract between the supplier and the importer, but to the prevailing price in the market on the date of importation or exportation." The learned S.D.R. contends that in Rajkumar Knitting Mills (supra), the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have interpreted Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same is binding on Courts and Tribunals as words in the said Section 14(1) have not undergone any change till date. (4) In Pan Asia Enterprises v. Collec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rted. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records and the cited case laws, we find that the appellants have imported goods of Chinese origin from traders in U.A.E. Ordinarily the price of Chinese goods brought from U.A.E. should be more than goods imported directly on account of the traders margin and higher freight compared to similar goods imported from China directly. On the contrary, the price declared is equivalent to US $ 500 only as against contemporaneous imports of comparable goods imported from China in the price range of US $ 1860 to US $ 1950. It is not the case of the appellants that the impugned goods are akin to the kind of goods dealt in the case of Eicher Tractors (supra) where 77% discount was allowed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....parable goods contemporaneously imported is an equally efficacious method of valuation. Such valuation is also perfectly legal as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various Tribunal Benches vide various decisions cited by the learned S.D.R. and listed in Paragraph 4 above. 6. The argument that in the absence of any evidence of the appellants remitting any amount over and above the invoiced price, other methods of valuation cannot be adopted is not acceptable. In fact, where evidence of extra payment is available, then the transaction value method itself would be adequate to deal with such a case. Since transaction value is defined as the actual price paid or payable, the customs value would in such cases be the invoice pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on resale price, or computed value based on cost and profit etc. are designed to arrive at an equitable customs value for the purpose of charging customs duty. The importers cannot have a grievance so long as one of these methods is fairly used, unless he is trying to secure a grossly undue duty advantage as in this case by declaring a value which is 25-30% of the value declared by competing importers importing similar goods. Equity considerations justify levy of duty to the same extent on similar goods. 8. As regards the Advisory Opinion 2.1 of the Technical Committee on Customs Valuation cited by the learned advocate for the appellants, we note that the citation is out of context as in this case Article 1 (Rule 4) method of valuation....