Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Century Laminating Company Ltd., Merino Panel Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs-Kandla

2015 (5) TMI 910 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Valuation of goods - whether the transaction value can be rejected under Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 - Held 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 - The appellant did not produce any evidence to show the international price consistent with the invoice presented by them along with the impo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 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 No. C/108-109/2007 - Order No. 10623-10624/2015 - Dated:- 13-5-2015 - Mr. P. K. Das, Hon ble Member (Judicial) And Mr. H. K. Thakur, Hon ble Member (Technical),JJ. For the Appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

$ 1350 PMT based on the contemporary imports made by other importers at the time of imports made by the appellants. Learned Advocate also argued that transaction value cannot be rejected in their case as the contract between the appellants and the supplier was executed on 13.08.2004. It was also his case that appellant Century Laminating Co. Ltd. is a regular importer of phenol from the same supplier. Learned Advocate relied upon one order No. 287/2005 dated 25.07.2005 passed by the same appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion (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. Overs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imports cannot be rejected in view of the relied upon case laws. On the other hand Revenue is of the argument that there is an abnormal reduction in the invoice price of the appellants as compare to the ordinary competitive price shown by the contemporary imports. In this regard it is observed that Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules 1988 has to be accepted if the transaction values satisfy the criteria mentioned in Proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules. As per this Proviso the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy 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 provis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s elaborately discussed in para 15 and 16 of order dated 17.03.2006 in the case of Century Laminating Co. Ltd. as to why, the earlier order No. 287/2005 dated 25.07.2005 passed by him is not acceptable. There paragraphs are reproduced below:- 15. The appellant has also referred to Order No. 287/2005 of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 25/07/2005 passed in the case of M/s. C.J. Shah & Company. M/s. C.J. Shah and Company with whom the present appellant is claiming parity has produced am .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h & Co., the invoice dated 17/07/2004 was backed by a firm contract dated 15/07/2004 as well as a Letter of Credit dated 28/07/2004, the appellate authority concluded that M/s. C.J. Shah had produced sufficient evidence for dispelling the doubt in the mind of the assessing officer regarding 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 d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

925.94 to 1000.02 PMT FOB. On 30/07/2004, the spot price went upto US $ 1256.63 to 1322 PMT FOB. In such circumstances, for ascertaining the price of Phenol, the date of contract was most important. Admittedly, the date of contract in the instant case was 03/08/2004 when the international price was between US $ 1100 to 1322 PMT FOB. Further, the price at which the identical goods was contracted for sale to India (M/s. Overseas) on 03/08/2004 was US $ 1350/- PMT CIF which is in consonance with t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

04 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. 5.2 The judgement of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus., Vishakhapatnam vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. (supra) will not help the case of appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mination 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 indicated in Section 14(1) of the Act and particularized in Rule 4(2) of CVR 1988, the price paid or payable by the importer to the vendor, in the ordinary course of international trade and commerce, shall be taken to be the transactio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

little emphasis that before rejecting the transaction value declared by the importer as incorrect or unacceptable, the revenue has to bring on record cogent material to show that contemporaneous imports, which obviously would include the date of contract, the time and place of importation, etc., were at a higher price. In such a situation, Rule 10A of CVR, 1988 contemplates that where the department has a reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value, it may ask the importer to pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version