Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2006 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 331 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - differential duty - Demand - Limitation - confiscation of goods - Can Rule 10A be invoke on the basis of identical goods imported at a higher price - HELD THAT:- We agree with the appellants that import of mancozeb from other countries cannot be treated as import of identical goods into India as per the definition of identical goods in Rule 2(c). The cif price in US$ is being compared with the price in Indian rupees. It is, however, to be kept in mind that due to rupee devaluation and increase in exchange rate of US$, the cif price in US$ after conversion into Indian rupees always shows a higher price of the goods. Further, the quantity imported either by M/s. United Phosphorus and M/s. Lupin Agro Chemicals has not been mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, the price at which others imported Mancozeb into India cannot be treated as import of identical goods so as to reject the value declared by Bayer. In the present case, the imports were partly made prior to introduction of Rule 10A on 19-2-98 and in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. v. CC[1999 (11) TMI 220 - CEGAT, MADRAS], the Tribunal held that Rule 10A is not retrospective and cannot be applied for imports made prior to its introduction in the statute book. The appeal of the Revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on merits, as seen from [2001 (3) TMI 1029 - SC ORDER]. There is yet another reason for the non-applicability of Rule 10A to the facts of the present case. The Rule applies in cases where the proper officer has reasons to doubt the truth and accuracy of the value declared to the customs, where the Customs authorities feel that there has been manipulation in the invoices or in the value declared to Customs and involving extra remittance to the foreign supplier over and above the invoice value. That is no so in the present case as there is no dispute about the truth and accuracy of the declared value. On the plea of limitation also, we find that the appellants have a strong case. What is used against them is their declaration to Customs that they and R&H are not related. This declaration was based on the understanding of the Customs Valuation Rules. The agreement between the appellants and the foreign supplier was submitted to the department on 2-5-97 itself and goods were assessed on the price declared by the appellants and it is only on 25-1-01 that the proceedings for undervaluation have been initiated against them. It is, therefore, clear that proceedings have been initiated only in view of change of opinion by the department. Hence allegation of suppression cannot sustain. The extended period of limitation is, therefore, not available to the department. Thus, we hold that the value declared by the appellant is required to be accepted, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.
|