TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 400 MT of M/s BGH Exim Limited. On this difference itself, it can be construed that when there is a long term contract for lifting of a minimum 8 Lakh Tonnes Per Annum, obviously there will be substantial discount in the price. On this basis, it cannot be said that the comparable price of BGH Exim Limited should be taken for assessment of import of the appellant. It is observed that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has examined each and every aspect of the case and came to the conclusion that there is a vast difference between the nature of supplies made by BGH Exim Limited and the appellant in as much as there is a long term contract of the appellant with the suppliers and for the huge quantity of 9000 MT Per Annum. There is no infirmity in the findings of the impugned order - Appeal of Revenue dismissed. - Customs (CROSS) Appeal No. 14 of 2012 in Customs Appeal No. 13 of 2012 - Final Order No. A/10301/2023 - Dated:- 17-2-2023 - MR. RAMESH NAIR , MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri G. Kirupanandan, Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the Appellant Shri P.D. Rachchh (Advocate) appeared for the Respondent ORDER This is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old for export on the date of contract and there was three months difference between the date of contract of the respondent and other importer, namely, BGH Exim Limited whose value is proposed to take, therefore, the price of BGH Exim Limited cannot be taken. He placed reliance on the following judgments: Gira Enterprises vs CC Ahmedabad 2006 (194) ELT 92 (Tri. Mum.) Nav Bharat Enterprises 1988 (34) ELT 388 (T) 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the case of the department is that due to similarity in various factors, the import price of BGH Exim Limited needs to be followed and the price declared by the appellant should be rejected. We find that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the entire issue in detail not only on the facts but also on the law point. There is an important difference between the facts of the present import and the import made by BGH Exim Limited in which there is only one consignment whereas in the respondent s case the contract was for a quantity of minimum 8 lakh Tonnes Per Annum for the period of 5 years and the respondent had imported 89249 MT of Non-calcined pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd us. CC, Bombay 1998 (98) ELT 292 (SC) has clearly ruled that in matters of Customs valuation, though the contract between the supplier and the importer may have a bearing in governing the inter se relationship between the supplier and the importer but insofar as assessment of the value for the purpose of levy of customs duty under Section 14 of the Act is concerned, what is necessary is to determine the value of the goods as on the date of importation or exportation. This apart, the contracted value can be challenged if it can be shown that it is significantly lower than prices of comparable goods imported at or about the same time. Indeed, this decision relates to prior to amendment in section 14. I have also found that the Hon'ble CESTAT has taken into account the submission of the appellant's advocate that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to cases after amendment in section 14 and Valuation Rules thereunder, as also held in the case of CC v/s Pushpanjali Silk Mills Ltd., upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reported at 2007(207) E.L.T. A 100, and while remanding this case noted that there is virtually no evidence on record rejecting the invoice value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as correct transaction value. 9. Besides, the appellant has also stated in their submissions that they are the regular buyers from the supplier, which gave them a better price advantage. They have contracted the quantity of minimum 8 lakh tonnes per annum for a period of 5 years. Also, as per one of the conditions of the contract 25% of payment was paid in advance on signing contract and nomination on vessel whereas there was no advance payment condition for BGH Exim, rather it was on sight payment basis. These factors explain the better price for the appellant, though I do not have evidences on record about the terms of contract of BGH Exim to verify. Yet, I find that the quantity factor is weighing heavily in favour of the appellant. I have also taken note of the fact that Purchase Contracts dated 27.2.2009, 21.3.2009 and 01.11.2009 executed by the appellant with the same supplier M/s Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises Pte Ltd. have been completed through 3 shipments of 45000 MT each with same specifications and allowed clearance at Navlakhi Port at price US$ 38.75 per MT CFR FO. This indicates that indeed the import by BGH with one off import, and such one import would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
