TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EPRESENTED BY : Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.K. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - In this appeal the appellant is aggrieved by enhancement of value ordered by the Commissioner in respect of the goods (Polypropylene Carpets) imported by them in November, 1997. The appellant had imported three consignments of Polypropylene Carpets (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 rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a corrigendum issued by the department on 18-2-1999, the very basis of proposal of enhancement of value was changed. The new proposal was to enhance the value of the goods on the basis of proforma invoice No. 68 dated 11-10-1997 of M/s. Saudi Carpet Factory, Saudi Arabiac which mentioned the price of Polypropylene Carpets at 12.5 Saudi Riyal per square metre. The corrigendum to the show-cause notice further 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 subje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and above the declared price is available, I hold that no case is made out to warrant action under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 or imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) ibid. I, therefore drop the charges in the show-cause notice invoking action under Section 111(m) and 112(a) of the said Act." 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Valuation Rules read with Rule 3(i). Learned Counsel submits that none of the special circumstances particularized under sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 was found to exist in this case and, therefore, the declared value should have been accepted as transaction value under sub-rule 1 of Rule 4. In this connection he has relied on the following decisions :- (i) 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) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Saudi Arabian supplier to the UAE-based trader for the purpose of holding the transaction to be contemporaneous with the subject import. The sale by the Saudi Arabian supplier to the UAE-based trader was in October, 1997 and the subsequent sale to the Indian importer took 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber, 1997 was the sale of carpets by the Saudi Arabian supplier to a UAE-based trader and that was in a proforma invoice issued by the former to the latter-. It was followed by a subsequent sale by the UAE-based trader to the Indian importer and the same was at a higher price as indicated 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
