TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepting declared price of DM 736.36 PMT as per ADF No. 1168/26-7-1985. But this does not confirm alleged acceptance of value. They have not produced the relevant invoice. The advocate has further stated that there was difference in the composition of the appellant s consignment and in the consignment imported by M/s. Jindal Pipes Ltd. with reference to Carbon, Manganese etc. The appellants have imported the goods 10,000 M/Tons at DM 736.36 PMT and the Lower Authority noticed similar goods 1000 M/Tons were imported by M/s. Jindal Pipes Ltd. from the same supplier invoiced at the same time at unit price of DM 870/- PMT. The Lower Authority after verifying the slight difference in sizes and composition and after giving due allowance for freight discount for bulk order and element of interest for 180 days enhanced the value to DM 775/- under the provisions of Rule 3(a) read with Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. The orders passed by the Lower Authority, therefore, do not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly, rejected." 2. The facts in brief, are that the appellants imported Mild Steel Hot Rolled Sheets in coil and presented two Bills of Entry for their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e for interest. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel referred to invoice at page 66 of the paper book which indicated that interest at a rate of 20% per annum for 180 days was chargeable. The learned Counsel submitted that if interest at 20% p.a. is included in the price charged from the appellants then it will come to D.M. 810/-. The learned Counsel also submitted that the same foreign supplier had charged M/s. Jindal Pipes Ltd. at a rate of D.M. 735/- for 1000 kgs. This invoice was dated 7-6-1985 and the Letter of Credit was opened on 24-1-85. The learned Counsel also submitted that there were several invoices dated 21-5-1985 to M/s. Jindal Pipes Ltd. in which again rate was D.M. 735/-. Similarly, the same foreign supplier in their invoice dated 21-5-1985 had charged D.M. 735/- from M/s. Prakash Tubes Ltd. Again on 21-5-1985, the same foreign supplier charged D.M. 735/- PMT from M/s. Mohta Eletro Steel Ltd.; that these facts were brought to the notice of the learned Collector (Appeals) but he did not give any credence to these various documents indicating that during the material period the price was quoted at around D.M. 735/- PMT. 4. The learned Counsel submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lished as undervaluation. The learned Counsel also cited and relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Product v. CCE reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 13 wherein the Hon ble High Court held that Customs Authorities have no jurisdiction to ignore the freight for bulk cargo which was neither mala fide nor special concession and was the uniform practice prevailing in the Shipping Trade. The ld. Counsel also cited and relied upon the decision in the case of Gordon Woodroffe Co. reported in 1983 (14) E.L.T. 2380 and Maheshwari Trading Corp. reported in 1987 (29) E.L.T. 739 (Tribunal) = 1985 ECR 973 as also the Hon ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Mahendra and Mahendra Ltd. reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 15. Summing up his arguments, the learned Counsel submitted that the lower authorities have taken an illegal and arbitrary view in enhancing their invoice value. In view of the submissions made and the case law cited and relied upon by the ld. Counsel, he submitted that all the case law cited will clearly show that there was no justification in enhancing the invoice price of the imported goods declared by them. 6. Shri A.K. Singhal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest if included in the invoice value of the imported goods. 10. On the second issue i.e. the quantity discount, we find that the Department has taken the view that invoice does not show the quantity discount. There is however, an admission on the part of the Department that quantity discount on bulk purchase is available to the trade and is generally a normal practice. We observe that from the various contentions made before us by both parties, it was an admitted position that quantity discount was permissible on bulk purchase. The only dispute centres round the percentage or the quantum of this discount and how much discount should be permissible was the basic issue whereas the appellants claimed that quantity discount normally is 2-1/2% on purchase of 10/- MT. The Department was of the view that this discount was not indicated in the invoice but allowed only 1% as quantity discount. The admitted position therefore, was that the quantity discount was permissible. No doubt, the quantity in the instant case was large and therefore, the quantity discount was permissible. This quantity discount is to be viewed in the overall situation of price prevailing for identical goods duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
