TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r on 19-12-1988. On further enquiry it was found that the goods were originally shipped to M/s. Bombay Oil Industries @ US $ 1,400 PMT as per contract dated 3-9-1988 for 350 MT for shipment during September-October, 1988 against payment by confirmed irrevocable letter of credit. The goods had also been shipped as per terms of contract. The related Bill of Lading was dated 28-10-1988. Letter of Credit had also been opened for the value of the goods @ US $ 1,400. However, due to certain discrepancies in the shipment Bombay Oil Industries cancelled the L/C and their bankers returned the shipping documents to the Yugoslav suppliers by which time the goods had already been shipped. The appellants say that thereafter the Yugoslav supplier offered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng been upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order, the present appeal before the Tribunal has been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Mayur Shroff ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Gurdeep Singh, ld. DR for the department. 4. The question is whether the price of the HDPE imported declared as US $ 1,200 can be accepted as its assessable value under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Valuation Rules. The appellants contend that it is a price arrived at on the basis of negotiation with supplier at arms length and should be accepted as the transaction value for the goods under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. However, we find that the circumstances of this negotiation is crucial to the issue. The Asstt. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 382 relied upon by the appellants before us. In this case there is a clear finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the records do not confirm any downward trend in the prices of the goods. Nor has the appellants been able to establish the claim that the lower price was in the nature of quantity discount. The supplier s letter referred above also gives no such indication. The earlier order placed by Bombay Oil Industries also did not show such discount. Therefore, the Asstt. Commissioner s reliance on the price of US $ 1,400 in the case of Adarsh Packers for the same goods from the same supplier against contract entered into at the same time as Bombay Oil Industries cannot be faulted. 6. In the result, it is held that on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
