TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Israel company which manufactured the goods. The goods which were consigned in 38 consignments which arrived at Mumbai by air from December 1996 to February 1998. The appellant filed bills of entry for their clearances indicating the value shown in the invoices for these consignments. The goods were permitted clearance at these values. The department had in its possession price list issued by the Israel manufacturer which showed the price of the goods to be substantially higher - 40% to 55% - than the price declared in the invoice. Subsequently the department searched the premises of the appellant and obtained from it a price list of the Hong Kong supplier and an agreement between the appellant and the supplier. This agreement, describe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accept either of these submissions. He said that the Supreme Court's judgment was not applicable to the facts before him. He expressed the view that it has not been shown that the discount that was given to other buyers, which the appellant had cited, has been accepted to be genuine by the department. He confirmed the proposal in the notice demanding duty and imposing penalty. 4. The counsel for the appellant raises the same grounds that were raised before the Commissioner. As to the second point, viz. the acceptance by the department of prices lower than the price lists, of other imports, the department had three occasions (two during the hearing of stay applications and one thereafter) to verify whether the prices at other imports were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antity of goods. At the same time, we note that the appellant itself has been paying different prices for the same product at different times. It paid US $ 11250 for Eversmart scanner supplied by Scitex in October, 1997 and another in September, 1997 at a price of US $ 11900 and in December, 1997 at US $ 10000. All these only goes to show that the department had erred in relying upon the price list as the basis for rejecting the transaction value. 6. In its judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC the Supreme Court said that unless the price paid for the transaction falls within the exceptions contained in the proviso under sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, the Customs authority are bound to assess the duty on the transaction v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|