TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1037
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Peroxide'. The Appellant had imported Benzene under High Sea Sale agreement and based on the contract, goods were supplied and were assessed provisionally and cleared. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued and the Adjudication authority confirmed differential duty of Rs. 5,75,203/- on the enhanced value along with interest. Aggrieved by same, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order of the Adjudication authority. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that; the price declared by the Appellant to the Customs at the time of filing the Bill of Entry was the transaction value and Appellant has not paid anyth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and inclusion of commission on notional basis may not be appropriate. Further this Tribunal in the matter of M/s Excel Glass (supra), also held that prices paid by original indentor cannot be treated as value of the goods imported taking into consideration requirement under Section 14(1), ibid that it shall be the price for delivery at the time and place of importation. Thus, the transaction value is the price at which the goods were sold on High Sea Sale basis to the Appellant. Similar view was taken by Larger Bench in the matter of M/s Eternit Everest Ltd -2000 (119) E.L.T 716 (Tri-LB). 4. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) submits that the case laws relied by the Appellant are not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egal sanctity under Customs Act and therefore the explanation given by the importer on the lower High Sea Sale on the ground of exchange rate fluctuation is not acceptable and merit rejection. 5. Heard both sides and perused records. 6. The Appellant had produced sufficient evidence regarding the value and there is no dispute that the Appellant had paid anything over and above the value declared by them while procuring the goods. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s Hyderabad Industries Ltd (supra) held that the responsibility to prove that the High Sea Sale transaction constituted an international transfer of goods lay with the importer. However, inspite of submitting sufficient evidence, the Adjudicating authority rejected the declar....