2009 (6) TMI 275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntry No. 8067 dt. 14-6-02 by declaring the price as USD 690 PMT. During the same period, another importer M/s. Crescent International had imported the 70 MT of the same commodity at a price of USD 755 PMT vide Bill of Entry No. 8068 dt. 14-6-02. The respondent was asked to justify their price under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called the Rules) by a query memo. In reply, the respondent stated that they are manufacturers of Ink and import the said MIBK directly from the manufacture on a half yearly contract at USD 700 PMT (690 + 10 as interest for late payment, if any). Not satisfied with the reply, the department issued a Show Cause Notice calling the respondent to show cause as to why the declared price should .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ide which he has taken note of the various precedent decisions on the issue, including Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in case of Eicher Tractors v. CCE, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). For better appreciation, we reproduce relevant paragraphs (Paras 7 and 9) of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. "7. The provisions came for interpretation before the Courts and Tribunal in many cases. In the case of Auto Hardware Enterprises v. CC reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 330 (T), Living Media v. CC reported in 2002 (148) E.L.T. 442 (T), Venus Insulation Products v. CC reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.-Del.) which was maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2003 (153) E.L.T. A 172 and Modi Rubber v. CC reported in 2002 (141) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n any case, when the respondent has justified the declared value with enough evidence, its truthfulness should not be doubted." 6. The Revenue in their memo of appeal, has not advanced any evidence to show that the contract price was not correct. They have also not effectively rebutted the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) as regards the effect of fluctuating market, which stands dealt in by Tribunal in the case of Finolex v. CCE, Pune - 2004 (174) E.L.T. 341 (Tri.-Del.) = 2004 (64) RLT 12 CESTAT (Tri.-Del.). The product in question being petroleum based product, the price of which swing in the international market along with swing in the petroleum price. The appellate authority has taken into account the evidence showing fluctuation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X