TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anathan explained that the appellants regularly import Ethylene Di Chloride (EDC). They had a contract with the supplier on 22-7-1997 for supply of 13,000 MT of EDC at a price of US $ 400 PMT CIF. In September, 1997 the first lot of 3,800 MT of EDC arrived at a price of US $ 400 per MT. For the second lot there was certain delay in shipment and in the meantime there was a fall in International price. Therefore, the appellants renegotiated with the supplier and the second lot arrived in November, 1997 at the renegotiated price of US $ 370 per MT, CIF. Meanwhile, considering the steep fall in International price, the previous contract was dissoved and a fresh contract was made in October, 1997 for supply at a price of US $ 320 per MT, CIF and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Sherman and Glashoff where it has been explained that under transaction value each shipment will be valued according to its own price whether the prices differ because the sales agreements were entered into different times or for any other reasons. He further explained that it is also written in that book that 10 different shipments can come into the same port on the same day from the same country and if the price is different on each, the duty value for each will be different unless one of the few specified exceptions of Article 1 i.e. Rule 4(2) applies. He, therefore, submitted that transaction value of EDC under both the contracts should be taken to be correct and legal. As regards the Assistant Commissioner's reliance on the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction value and thereby allow the appeal. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions both written as well as oral. The undisputed facts are as follows :- (i) The appellants had the original contract with supplier, dated 22-7-1997 for supply of 13,000 MT of Ethylene Di Chloride (EDC) at a price of US $ 400 per MT. Accordingly the first lot of 3,800 MT of EDC arrived in September 1997 at price of US $ 400 per MT and assessed to duty accordingly. (ii) For certain reason there was delay in despatch of second lot of the contracted amount and in the meantime, there was fall in international price. Consequently, the appellants renegotiated with the supplier and the second lot out of the original contract arrived late in November 1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluation Code, no doubt, asserts that each shipment will be valued according to its own price i.e. price paid or payable as agreed upon between the parties for that particular transaction. However, in the Indian Customs Valuation System, the transaction value method of WTO Valuation Code has not been retained in its pristine form, bereft of fetters of the deemed value concept inasmuch as while transaction value method has been adopted in Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, at the same time, certain parameters of deemed value concept have been set out under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act which would necessarily have to be satisfied while accepting the transaction value, particularly in view of the use of the clause subject to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de or manipulated. Some of the Tribunal decisions in this regard are cited below :- (1) Metalman Pine Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 382] (2) Vikram Plastics [1996 (88) E.L.T. 247] (3) Bombay Tyre International [2000 (123) E.L.T. 826] (4) Milton Plastics Ltd. [2001 (128) E.L.T. 263] 7. There was also Calcutta High Court judgment in the same line in the case of Sneha Traders [1992 (60) E.L.T. 43 (Cal.)]. However, the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1998 (98) E.L.T. 292 (S.C.)] on the issue of acceptance of the price prevalent on the date of contract has changed the hitherto settled views in this regard. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has given primacy to the provisions of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the rate of US $ 370 per MT. He has missed the vital point that this was the price in terms of the renegotiated original contract and this was the price prevalent on the date of re negotiation and not the date of importation, as is obvious from the facts on record. Having held that date of contract is not relevant for determining the value, he has gone totally wrong in relying on the value in terms of another contract with re-negotiated value prevalent on the date of that negotiation of the contract. In this context, the appellants have submitted a copy of another order passed by Asstt. Commissioner on 30-3-2000 i.e. about two months before the passing of the present order where he has dropped the demand in respect of similar importatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
