2001 (7) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in Standing Order No. 6/98 issued by the Commissioner of Customs directing the assessing officers to enhance the declared value to the level of the prices prevalent on the date of importation and as quoted on L.M.E.; that the Standing Order is contrary to the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rule, 1988 which lay emphasis on the primacy of the transaction value which can be rejected and substituted when and only when the transaction value is not found genuine and there is evidence of contemporaneous import of identical goods at comparatively much higher prices. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321(S.C.) wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar day; that these prices do not relate to any quantity as they are general prices; that LME prices cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the transaction value; that it can be the only basis for causing an enquiry at the most. Finally he submitted that the onus for rejection of declared value and adoption of a higher value instead is on the Revenue; that thus the finding in the impugned order that it was incumbent upon the appellant to adduce evidence regarding the price prevalent on the date of importation is contrary to the settled position of law on this subject; that in Eicher Tractors case, it has been conceded by the Revenue that the onus is on the Customs Authorities to establish the market value of the imported goods. 3. Counterin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ting the transaction value is that it is low as compared to the prevailing price quoted in Metal Bulletin. The ld. Advocate has rightly emphasised that the Revenue has not adduced any evidence of contemporaneous imports. In Mukund's case, the Department has noticed import of the identical commodity by another importer at a higher price which was resembling to the LME price. We also observe that in the said case the Department enhanced the declared value (US $ 1225) to US $ 1355 per M.T. (The price of contemporaneous import) and not the LME price which was between US $ 1370 to 1420. In view of these facts, the Tribunal observed that "the LME price can be considered to be a fair indicator of the prevailing market price". In Rajkumar Knitting .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X