2008 (1) TMI 91

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in, had been importing "Orange Shock Tube" from M/s. The Ensign Bickform Co., 660, Hopmeadow Street, USA (hereinafter referred to as, 'the exporter') at a unit price of US$ 15.00/1000 ft. (0.015/ft.) which was the declared value of the tubes till November, 2000. In November, 2000, the price was reduced to US$ 0.0141/ft. (14.10/1000 ft.). The said reduction in the price was attributed to the increase in the import by the importer. The Department accepted the said reasoning. 3. However, in June, 2001, the importer declared the value of the imported tubes at a unit price of US$ 0.01/ft. (i.e. US$ 10.00/1000 ft.) and submitted Invoice No. 259217-4 ft. 5-2-2001. The total quantity imported vide Bill of Entry was 78 lacs feet indicating the valu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ods were ordered to be assessed at the enhanced value for duty, viz., US$ 14.10/1000 ft. (0.0141/ft.) FOB. 6. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner aggrieved against which the respondent carried an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision in the case of Daewoo Motors India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 489 (Tri.) and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., Gurgaon reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 390 which have attained finality, held that the respondent and the exporter were not related persons. Merely because the supplier was holding 30% of equity in share capital of the buyer does not establish mutuality of interest as no equity was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bject to the condition that the respondent shall purchase 100% of its annual requirement from the same exporter. 9. We find from the record that the respondent had purchased 7.15 lac metres during the year 1997-98, 1.3 crore metres during the year 1998-1999, 1.31 crore metres during the year 1999-2000 and 1.90 crore metre during the year 2000-2001. It is manifest from the said period that the volume of import was increased substantially by the importer. The said increase in the volume of import may have been the reason for decreasing the price. This can be a valid consideration. Revenue has failed to place any contemporaneous imports of identical goods by any other importer during the material time showing the purchase to be more than US$ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X