TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price was charged from them by the same supplier on any commercial consideration such as quantity, quality or negotiation. - From the facts recorded by the first appellate authority international prices of PHENOL were increased after 30.07.2004 and were ranging between US $ 1256 PMT to 1322 PMT FOB. The contract entered between the appellants and the supplier is after 30.07.2004, therefore, higher price of US $ 1350 PMT CIF, at which same goods were imported by contemporaries in the same vessel, was justified for payment of duty and transaction value has been correctly rejected. - proceedings there is sufficient reasons to reject the transaction value under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 - Decided against assessee. - Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Central Excise, Rohtak vs. Sai Sales Corporation [2012 (278) E.L.T. 197 (Tri. Del.)] In view of the above case laws it was strongly argued that transaction value under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation (Dertermination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988 cannot be rejected. 3. Shri L. Patra (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the bench go through para 15 16 of the order dated 22.12.2006 to bring home the point that the prevailing international prices of the phenol were ranging from US $ 1256 PMT to 1322 PMT FOB after 30.07.2004. It was his case that after 30.07.2004 prices of phenol went up and were being imported at US $ 1350 PMT as per contemporary imports of M/s. Overseas Polymers. Pvt. Ltd. Gandhidham where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccuracy of the value declared in relation to any imported goods, he may ask the importer of such goods to furnish further information including documents or other evidence and if, after receiving such further information, or in the absence of a response of such importer, the proper officer still has reasonable doubt about the truth or accuracy of the value so declared, it shall be deemed that the value of such imported goods cannot be determined under the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 4. (2) At the request of and importer, the proper officer, shall intimate the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value declared in relation to goods imported by such importer and provide a reasonable opportunity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the truth and accuracy of the invoice price. In the present case, the international price on the date of contract of the appellant is higher than the value declared by the appellant and also on the same date another importer M/s. Overseas Polymers had contracted for supply of identical goods by the same supplier at the higher price. 16. It has not been denied by the appellant that during the months of July and August, 2004 there was volatility in the international price of Phenol. It is evident from the information available in international journal ICIS LOR for spot prices of Phenol on different dates. It may be seen that for US and Gulf, the spot price for Phenol on 16/07/2004 was between US $ 925.94 to 1000.02 PMT FOB. On 30/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act 1962 and Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 on transaction value, Hon ble Apex Court made the following observations in para-11:- 11. On a plain reading of Sections 14(1) and 14(1A), it is clear that the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of deemed value of such goods. The determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act. Conjointly read, both Section 14(1) of the Act and Rule 4 of CVR, 1988 provide that in the absence of any of the special circumstances indicate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of the value of imported goods. The doubt held by the officer concerned has to be based on some material evidence and is not to be formed on a mere suspicion or speculation. We may hasten to add that although strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings under the Act, yet the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is sought to be placed by the revenue. It is well settled that the onus to prove undervaluation is on the revenue but once the revenue discharges the burden of proof by producing evidence of contemporaneous imports at a higher price, the onus shifts to the importer to establish that the price indica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
