TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1A) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Sub-section (1A) makes it clear that resort to the Rules is subject to the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 14. As per sub-Section (1) of Section 14, the value of the goods which are imported are to be fixed at the price on which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale. Further, the said valuation has to be done at the time of delivery and place of importation or exportation. Thus, we are of the view that in the present case, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 are clearly attracted and there was no necessity of invoking the rules. The documents clearly show the prevailing market rate of the goods in question in international market at the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice. For this purpose, he invoked the provisions of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Rules ) to arrive at transaction value of the goods. The respondent challenged the said Order-in-Original dated 27-8-1998 before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 18-5-2001 rejected the appeal of the respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT ) and CESTAT had, vide its impugned decision, accepted the contention of the respondent and set aside the order of the Commissioner holding that the valu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soda ash light is concerned. However, we find that the mistake which was committed by the Commissioner was to straightaway refer to the aforesaid Rules in order to arrive at the transaction value. This could be permissible only if the case had been covered by the provisions under sub-section (1A) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). In order to demonstrate this, we reproduce below the provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (1A) of Section 14, as existed at the relevant time, which read as under :- Section 14. Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment. - (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, in order to demonstrate the price at which these goods were ordinarily sold at the time of delivery and place of importation, the respondent herein had filed various documents exhibiting the prices that were prevailing at that time. Some of these are taken note of in the show cause notice itself, the details of which are as under :- Fax dated 17-3-1998 from Arroh International at $127 per M.T. CIF. Fax dated 20-4-1998 from Beacons private limited at $ 124 per M.T. CIF. Fax dated 13-5-1998 from Nahar at $ 129 per M.T. CIF. Fax dated 3-7-1998 from Tianjin at $ 128 per M.T. CIF. 5. The aforesaid documents clearly show the prevailing market rate of the goods in question in international market at the relevant period. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
