9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or price of comparable import made by BGH Exim Limited @ Indian Rs. 3701.20 is correct. Accordingly whether the enhancement of value should be made taking the price of comparable imports. 2. Shri G. Kirupanandan, Learned (superintendent) Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the fact that all the main factors i.e. Origin of Cargo, date of shipment / bill of lading, vessel carrying the cargo remain the same. He further submits that also certificates of sampling and analysis issued by M/s Sai Gulf Lic, an independent analysing agency for quantity of 40,500 MT of cargo and 9,400.480 MT of cargo respectively clearly indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are consecutive and are of closely proximate dates; bill of lading/shipment are of same date Le. 28.06.2009; the destination port is also the same and therefore the goods in both the cases can be held to be identical. The appellant's main plea is that the adjudicating authority should have favourably considered the contract date and the quantity factor while rejecting the transaction value for redetermination thereof. While deciding the stay application, the case of Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CC, Bombay 1998 (98) ELT 292 (SC), was relied upon, which the appellant has vehemently contested stating that this judgment relates to un-amended section 16 of the Customs Act, 1962 where there was concept of 'deemed value', and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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". Hence, I proceed to examine the matter afresh, keeping in view the current provisions of section 14 of the Act and rules framed thereunder. 8. With regard to the contentions on contract date, I observe that though the appellant's contract date was 25.01.2009 as compared to 25.06.2009 of the other importer (BGH Exim]. Thus, fluctuation in International prices in the span of 3 months is quite possible. A contract des reflect firming up of price of future supplies. Hence, if we look at it from the transaction value' point of view, it is possible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itya Fuels Ltd vs. CC, Kandla reported at 2006/2011 ELT 464 (Tri-Mumbai) dealt with an identical case, where identical goods arrived in the same vessel and the price contracted for one was one month earlier. It was held that there was no evidence that the importer did not pay the invoice price, and thus the invoice value was accepted 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acted under different contracts entered into different points of time and where there is no allegation or evidence of mis-declaration, collusion undervaluation, the transaction value has to be accepted. I, therefore conclude that there is no evidence on record to reject transaction value. In the instant case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has also, in unambiguous terms, already observed. that "there is virtually no evidence on record rejecting the invoice value" Thus, the declared transaction value has to be accepted for assessment. 11. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order with the direction that the declared value shall be accepted as transaction value and assessment shall be done accordingly. 12. The appeal is allowed" Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
