9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pets (190 x 280 cms size) of Madina Super Brand of Saudi Arabian origin, supplied by M/s Mohd. Humaid Al Qama Trading Est. and filed three Bills of Entry dated 19-11-1997 declaring the price of the goods US$ 7(CIF)per piece. Upon first check examination, the description, size and quantity of the goods were found to be as declared in the relevant invoice. Subsequently, the department gathered information relating to the price of the goods from the office of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE. The statement of the importer was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. On the basis of the results of investigation, a show-cause notice dated 16-1-1998 was issued to the importer proposing to reject the declared value and to det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her indicated that M/s. Saudi Carpet Factory had sold the carpets at the said price to one M/s. Kazin International Trading, Dubai and the latter supplied the goods to M/s. Amira International, Mumbai for a price of US$ 3.59 CIF per square metre as per invoice dated 7-2-1998. These transactions were taken to be contemporaneous for the subject imports made by the appellant and accordingly, in the corrigendum to the show-cause notice, the declared price of US$ 7 per piece of carpets was proposed to be rejected in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules and the price of US$ 3.59 CIF per square metre was proposed to be adopted for the purpose of assessment under Section 14(1) of the Act read with Rule 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the valuation done by the Commissioner is illegal and unsustainable for numerous reasons. In their first reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant had submitted a statement to the Commissioner showing details of certain imports of carpets cleared at Mumbai Customs. Such imports were made during the period January to September, 1997, and the same included an import made by this appellant from the same supplier at the same price (US$ 7 CIF per piece). It is submitted that, in September, 1997 this appellant paid US$ 7 per piece to the same supplier for 635 carpets and in November, 1997 they paid at the same rate for 1942 carpets. Learned Counsel submits that these aspects were not considered by the adjudicating authority. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) (ii) Motor Industries Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 2009 (244) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) (iii) Basant Industries v. Addl. Commissioner of Customs - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.) (iv) Devika Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 75 (Tri.- Mum.) (v) Spices Trading Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, Madras - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 665 (Tri.) (vi) Mark Auto Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 261 (Tri.-Del.) Relying on some of the above decisions, the learned Counsel submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook place in February, 1998. The learned Commissioner adopted the second sale price (February, 1998) as the basis for enhancement of the value of the goods. On the other hand, "standard import" was held to be 'contemporaneous' with the subject import on the basis of the proforma invoice issued by the Saudi Arabian supplier in October, 1997 to the UAE-based trader. Learned Counsel submits that any import cannot be termed contemporaneous without reference to the date on which the goods are imported into India. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the value determined by the Commissioner is unsustainable in law as well as on fact. 3. We have heard the learned SDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicated in the invoice issued by the trader. This second transaction took place in February, 1998. Curiously, the learned Commissioner ignored the price indicated in the proforma invoice issued by the Saudi Arabian supplier in October, 1997. He laid his hands on the higher price indicated in the UAE trader's invoice issued in February, 1998, for the obvious purpose of adopting it as the basis for enhancement of the value of the goods imported by the appellant. At the same time, the learned Commissioner reverted back to the Saudi Arabian supplier's invoice (issued in October, 1997) and chose to adopt the same as the basis for holding that the importation into India was "contemporaneous" with the import of carpets by the appellant. His reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
