TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t up to 30% was allowable in ordinary circumstances by the Indian agent itself. There was the additional factor that the stock in question was old and it was a one time sale of 5 year old stock. When a discount is permissible commercially, and there is nothing to show that the same would not have been offered to any one else wishing to buy the old stock, there is no reason why the declared value in question was not accepted under Rule 4(1). Thus production of the price list did not discharge the onus cast on the Customs authorities to prove that the value of the 1989 bearings in 1993 as declared by the appellant was not the "ordinary" sale price of the bearings imported. The decision of the Tribunal accepting the determination of value by the Assistant Collector cannot, therefore, be sustained. Appeal allowed. - 6492 of 1998 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2000 - A.P. Misra and Ruma Pal, JJ. [Judgment per : Ruma Pal, J.]. - M/s. Eicher Tractors Ltd., the appellant before us, manufacturers tractors and tractor engines in India. From 1955 the appellant imported bearings of a specific size for their tractors and tractor engines from M/s. NTN Corporation, Osaka, Japan. This 33 year re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon the decision of this Court in Padia Sales Corporation v. CC - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 35 (S.C.) = 1993 Supp (4) SCC 57 to hold that "specially quoted price was not acceptable in preference to the ordinary price in the course of international trade". According to the Tribunal, the ordinary price of the bearings in question was as mentioned in the vendor's price list. The decision of the Tribunal has been assailed before us by the Appellant. 4.According to the appellant, Rule 8 of the Rules, could not have been relied on by the Assistant Commissioner without determining the value of the bearings under Rule 4. It was submitted that giving of discounts was a normal incidence of commerce and given the circumstances of the case a discount of 77% was perfectly justified. Reference was made to the decision in Mirah Export Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 3 where discounts ranging between 50% to 70% were found to be acceptable. According to the appellant, the reason given by the Assistant Collector for not accepting the actual price paid for the bearings as the true value of the transaction was erroneous particularly when there was no allegation of under-valuatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods when sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules." 8.Reading Rule 3(i) and Rule 4(1) together, it is clear that a mandate has been cast on the authorities to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goods in respect of the goods under assessment as the transaction value. But the mandate is not invariable and is subject to certain exceptions specified in Rule 4(2) namely : (a) there are no restrictions as to the disposition or use of the goods by the buyer other than restrictions which - (i) are imposed or required by law or by the public authorities in India; or (ii) limit the geographical area in which the goods may be resold; or (iii) do not substantially affect the value of the goods; (b) the sale or price is not subject to same condition or consideration for which a value cannot be determined in respect of the goods being valued; (c) no part of the proceeds of any subsequent resale, disposal or use of the goods by the buyer will accrue directly or indirectly to the seller, unless an appropriate adjustment can be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of these rules; and (d) the buyer a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me as the subject goods. Where there are no contemporaneous imports into India, the value is to be determined under Rule 7 by a process of deduction in the manner provided therein. If this is not possible the value is to be computed under Rule 7A. When value of the imported goods cannot be determined under any of these provisions, the value is required to be determined under Rule 8 "using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules and sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on the basis of data available in India." If the phrase 'the transaction value' used in Rule 4 were not limited to the particular transaction then the other Rules which refer to other transactions and data would become redundant. 14.It is only when the transaction value under Rule 4 is rejected, then under Rule 3(ii) the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 5 to 8 of the Rules. Conversely if the transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1) and does not fall under any of the exceptions in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent Rules. 15.The Assistant Collector in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorities accepting the argument that a discount is a recognised feature of international trade practice and that as long as those discounts are uniformly available to all and based on logical commercial bases, they cannot be denied under Section 14. It appears from the judgment that a distinction was drawn between a discounted price special to a particular customer and discounts available to all customers. 21.As already noted all these cases dealt with imports made prior to the coming into force of the Rules in 1988. Now the 'special considerations' are detailed statutorily in Rule 4(2). 22.In the case before us, it is not alleged that the appellant has mis-declared the price actually paid. Nor was there a mis-description of the goods imported as was the case in Padia Sales Corporation. It is also not the respondent's case that the particular import fell within any of the situations enumerated in Rule 4(2). No reason has been given by the Assistant Collector for rejecting the transaction value under Rule 4(1) except the price list of vendor. In doing so, the Assistant Collector not only ignored Rule 4(2) but also acted on the basis of the vendor's price list as if a price list ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
